Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/positionofevangeOObarn 


THE 


POSITION 


EVANGELICAL  PARTY 


EPISCOPAL    CHURCH 
BY  ALBERT  BARNES. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

PERKINS    AND    PURVES. 

1844. 


*#*  This  book  is  published  at  the  request  of  many 
clergymen  and  others,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  it  a 
more  extensive  circulation  than  it  would  be  likely  to 
have  in  its  original  form,  and  not  with  a  view  to  pecu- 
niary advantage  to  any  one. 

It  is  sold  only  for  cash,  at  the  following  prices : 
Single  copies,       -         -         10  cents. 
Per  dozen,  75  cents. 

Per  hundred,        -        -        $5  00. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

The  views  of  Episcopacy  exhibited  in  the  follow- 
ing pages,  were  first  submitted  to  the  public  in  an 
article  in  the  "  New  Englander,"  for  January,  1844. 
With  the  consent  of  the  editor  of  that  work,  and  by 
the  advice  of  brethren  whose  opinions  it  is  the  duty 
and  pleasure  of  the  author  of  the  article  to  respect, 
it  is  now  reprinted  in  this  form.  This  is  done  from 
no  desire  to  interfere  with  the  internal  affairs  of 
another  denomination,  but  because  the  churches  and 
the  community  have  a  right  to  know  what  is  the 
essential  tendency  of  Episcopacy,  under  its  best 
forms.  Entertaining  the  views  expressed  in  this 
article,  as  the  result  of  all  the  attention  which  I  have 
been  able  to  give  the  subject, — though  ready  to  be 
corrected  if  I  am  in  error — I  have  no  unwillingness 
to  be  known  as  the  author,  and  it  no  longer  appears 
as  anonymous. 

ALBERT  BARNES. 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  21,  1844. 


THE    POSITION 


EVANGELICAL  PARTY  IN  THE  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


It  is  from  no  desire  to  intermeddle  with  the  inter- 
nal affairs  of  another  denomination  of  Christians, 
that  we  introduce  to  our  readers  the  subject  which 
we  have  placed  at  the  head  of  this  article.  Nor  is 
it  from  any  wish  to  take  advantage  of  the  present 
troubles  and  growing  dissensions  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  to  make  converts  to  our  better  faith,  or  to 
make  reprisals  for  the  accessions  which  they  have 
sought  to  gain  from  the  disputes  and  divisions  of 
other  denominations.  We  have  listened  in  calmer 
times  with  proper  interest  to  their  proclamations  of 
their  own  unity,  while  other  churches  have  been 
rent  into  factions,  or  threatened  with  schism.  We 
have  seen  a  few  from  other  churches,  charmed  with 
this  proclamation  of  unity,  and  professedly  won  by 
the  hope  of  peace,  leave  the  connections  in  which 
they  were  trained,  and  attach  themselves  to  Episco- 
pacy. But  they  have  not  been  men  whose  departure 
the  churches  have  had  occasion  to  regard  as  a  serious 
calamity,  or  whose  recovery  would  be  worth  any 
very  serious  effort.  We  are  content  that  they  should 
minister  in  their  new  connection,  we  hope  with  greater 
success  than  was  promised  in  their  former  relations, 
1* 


G 


and  with  all  the  peace  and  comfort  which  it  may  be 
possible  for  them  now  to  obtain. 

We  feel  that  we  have  a  right  to  advert  to  this 
subject  only  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  the  cause  of  our 
common  Christianity.  .In  their  internal  affairs; 
their  questions  of  precedency  and  order ;  their  family 
affections  or  alienations ;  their  domestic  difficulties, 
troubles  or  joys  ;  their  questions  about  the  relative 
rights  and  powers  of  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  or 
laymen  ; — we  claim  no  right  and  have  no  disposition 
to  interfere.  The  limits  of  courtesy  and  propriety 
on  such  matters  are  settled.  With  the  domestic 
concerns  of  a  neighbour — the  family  jars,  loves, 
alienations,  modes  of  living,  style  of  dress  or  inter- 
course, we  have  no  right  to  intermeddle.  It  is  their 
own  concern,  and  they  have  a  right  to  manage  it  in 
their  own  way.  We  are  not  to  be  "  busy-bodies  in 
other  men's  matters."  We  are  not  to  attempt  to 
foment  divisions  ;  or  to  aggravate  a  family  quarrel ; 
or  to  utter  the  note  of  triumph  over  their  dissensions 
— though  it  should  be  to  meet  and  ward  off  re- 
proaches on  account  of  our  own  ;  nor  are  we  to 
interfere  with  a  view  of  encouraging  a  feebler  party 
against  a  stronger  in  order  to  prolong  the  strife  and 
rend  the  family  asunder,  nor  to  make  needless  procla- 
mation of  what  we  may  happen  to  know  of  the 
family  jar.  We  go  even  farther  than  this.  We 
should  not  feel  ourselves  at  liberty  in  such  a  domestic 
difficulty  to  lend  our  aid  or  to  give  our  counsel  to  one 
of  the  parties  that  we  regarded  as  indubitably  right, 
and  that  held  opinions  in  accordance  with  our  own, 
in  order  to  prolong  the  difficulties  there  or  to  prevent 
a  reconciliation  in  any  way  which  they  might  regard 
as  proper. 


But  there  is  a  sense  in  which  this  becomes  a  matter 
of  common  interest,  and  in  reference  to  which  there 
is  common  ground.  If  the  neighbourhood  is  to  be 
affected  by  this  difference,  we  have  a  right  to  express 
our  views.  If  there  are  common  interests  pertaining 
to  the  good  order  of  society  that  are  in  danger  of 
suffering,  we  have  a  right  to  lift  up  the  voice  in  their 
defence.  If  principles  are  advanced  by  either  party 
which  may  affect  the  welfare  of  the  community,  we 
are  not  at  liberty  to  be  silent.  If  the  difficulty  is  the 
regular  and  inevitable  result  of  certain  views  which 
both  parties  publicly  proclaim  that  they  hold,  we 
have  a  right  to  say  so.  And  if  one  party  is  aiming 
at  an  impracticable  thing  ;  endeavouring,  though  in 
the  most  peaceful  manner,  and  with  the  purest  motives, 
to  maintain  principles  and  to  accomplish  objects  which 
are  in  their  nature  wholly  at  variance  with  those  on 
which  the  family  has  been  uniformly  administered, 
and  to  which  that  party  also  has  solemnly  expressed 
its  assent,  we  do  not  suppose  that  we  are  forbidden 
by  any  law  of  courtesy  to  express  our  convictions 
on  these  points,  and  to  endeavour  to  derive  from  this 
inevitable  want  of  harmony  lessons  that  shall  be  of 
value  to  the  common  cause. 

Such  we  consider  to  be  the  present  condition  of 
the  Episcopal  church.  A  crisis  has  occurred  in  that 
communion,  such  as  it  could  have  been  foreseen  by  a 
moderate  measure  of  sagacity  must  sooner  or  later 
occur,  and  which,  however  it  may  be  for  a  time 
suppressed,  we  venture  to  foretell  will  in  some  form 
continue  to  break  out,  until  "  the  church"  is  thorough- 
ly reformed  and  prelacy  abandoned. 

In  the  controversy  now  waging  there,  the  great 
interests  of  our  common  Christianity  are  affected. 


8 


There  are  momentous  questions  at  stake  in  which  all 
who  love  the  religion  of  the  Saviour  are  interested. 
There  are  points  of  much  more  importance  than  any 
which  can  be  raised  about  the  qualifications  of  Mr. 
Arthur  Carey  for  the  "  deaconship."  There  are 
questions  respecting  the  working  of  the  system  ;  its 
fitness  to  promote  unity  ;  the  measures  which  are 
adopted  to  secure  harmony  ;  the  effect  of  those 
measures  in  suppressing  the  truth,  preventing  free 
discussion,  and  fostering  error,  and  above  all  the 
general  effect  of  the  system  of  Episcopacy  on  evan- 
gelical religion,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man 
who  conceives  it  possible — as  it  may  be — that  he  or 
his  friends  should  be  invited  to  become  an  Episcopa- 
lian, to  examine,  and  which  the  present  outbreak 
furnishes  an  appropriate  opportunity  to  examine. 
We  have  never  had  any  sympathy  for  prelacy.  We 
have  never  believed  that  it  was  the  form  of  religion 
prescribed  in  the  New  Testament.  We  have  always 
regarded  it  as  a  system  adapted  to  cramp  and  crush 
the  free  spirit  of  the  gospel.  But  we  have  had  no 
doubt  that  there  were  many  of  the  intelligent  and 
the  good  among  the  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  who 
regarded  it  conscientiously  as  the  system  prescribed 
in  the  Bible  ;  and  we  have  supposed  that  there  were 
minds  so  formed  that  they  would  be  better  edified  in 
connection  with  that  form  of  religion  than  under  a 
different  method  of  organization.  We  think  the 
time  now  has  come  to  examine  the  influence  of  that 
system  on  evangelical  religion  ;  and  in  order  to  make 
our  inquiry  definite,  we  propose  to  inquire  into  the 
present  position  of  the  evangelical,  or  as  it  is  often 
called,  the  low  church  party  in  the  Episcopal  church. 
We  shall  inquire  whether  the  objects  at  which  they 


9 


aim  can  be  secured  in  that  communion,  or  whether 
they  do  not  necessarily  meet  with  obstructions  in  the 
organization  of  the  Episcopal  church  which  will 
certainly  prevent  the  accomplishment  of  those  objects  ; 
whether  there  are  not  in  their  forms  of  worship 
things  which  will  inevitably  cramp  and  crush  the 
free  spirit  of  religion  ;  and  whether  the  Episcopal 
church  is  not  so  organized  as  effectually  to  secure 
the  ultimate  ascendency  of  the  objects  aimed  at  by 
the  high  church  party.  In  other  words  the  question 
is,  whether  Tractarianism  is  not  a  fair  development 
of  the  system,  and  whether  those  views,  if  the  present 
organization  of  that  church  should  be  continued,  are 
not  destined  to  be  ultimately  triumphant. 

It  is  well  known  that  there  have  been,  perhaps 
from  the  commencement  of  its  existence  in  this 
country,  two  parties  in  the  Episcopal  church.  These 
parties  are  generally  known  by  the  names  of  the 
high  and  the  low  church — or  as  the  latter  prefer,  we 
believe,  to  be  called,  the  evangelical  party.  These 
parties  have  grown  up,  not  from  the  nature  of  pre- 
lacy, or  by  any  tendency  in  the  Episcopal  church  to 
foster  the  aims  sought  by  the  evangelical  party,  but 
from  the  contact  of  Episcopacy  with  the  spirit  of  our 
age,  and  with  the  free  developments  of  Christianity 
among  the  other  denominations  with  whom  Episco- 
palians come  necessarily  in  contact.  It  is  possible 
that  the  germs  of  these  parties  existed  in  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  its  incipient  state  in  this  country,  but 
that  which  has  now  grown  up  into  the  evangelical 
party,  we  suppose  would  have  been  suppressed  by 
the  overshadowing  of  the  religion  of  forms,  if  it  had 
not  been  excited  and  kindled  by  the  reflected  influence 
on  the  Episcopal  church  of  the  views  and  objects  of 


10 


evangelical  Christians  in  other  denominations.  It 
has  been  apparent  that  other  denominations  greatly 
surpassed  the  Episcopal  communion  in  zeal  for  those 
things  specially  commenced  in  the  New  Testament ; 
that  they  sought  a  more  spiritual  religion  than  had 
been  common  in  the  Episcopal  communion  ;  that 
they  aimed  more  to  convert  and  save  the  souls  of 
men  ;  and  that  they  sought  in  methods  that  had  the 
undoubted  sanction  of  the  New  Testament  to  spread 
the  gospel  around  the  globe.  The  question  arose 
whether  these  objects  could  not  be  grafted  on  Episco- 
pacy, and  whether  without  producing  schism,  and 
with  the  maintenance  of  the  highest  respect  for 
prelacy  and  for  the  forms  of  religion,  it  was  not 
possible  to  introduce  the  evangelical  spirit  into  the 
bosom  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  to  what  was 
regarded  as  the  nobleness,  venerableness,  and  autho- 
rity of  her  ancient  forms,  add  the  life  and  vigour  and 
elastic  energy  which  reigns  with  such  power  in 
other  denominations.  If  so,  it  seems  to  have  been 
supposed,  there  might  be  urged  in  favour  of  prelacy 
all  that  is  now  urged  from  the  necessity  of  the 
"  apostolic  succession  ;"  all  the  authority  of  the 
Fathers  ;  all  its  boasted  power  to  preserve  the  unity 
of  the  church  ;  and  all  the  advantage  derived  from 
a  staid  and  regular  organization,  united  with  all  that 
commends  evangelical  religion  to  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there 
have  been  and  are  still  in  the  bosom  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  men  who  strive  sincerely  and  with  a  zeal  not 
surpassed  by  those  of  other  denominations,  for  the 
conversion  of  souls.  They  are  men  who  would  do 
honour  to  any  cause,  and  whose  life  and  labours 
would  be  a  blessing  to  any  communion.     It  is  this 


11 


party  which  have  endeavoured  to  engraft  the  spirit 
of  evangelical  religion  on  the  forms  of  prelacy  ;  and 
it  is  to  their  holy  and  devoted  efforts  that  the  result 
has  already  more  than  once  occurred  that  the  Epis- 
copal church  has  been  in  danger  of  being  rent  in 
twain.  It  is  not  that  they  have  aimed  at  such  a 
disruption,  but  it  has  been  that  kind  of  danger  which 
would  exist  in  a  colossal  statue  of  marble  that  a 
fissure  would  be  caused  by  applying  intense  heat  to 
one  portion  and  not  to  the  other.  It  has  required  all 
the  power  of  numbers,  influence,  and  prelatical 
authority  on  the  part  of  the  high  church  party, 
united  with  all  the  veneration  of  the  low  church 
party  for  the  church  and  her  forms,  to  prevent  such 
a  rupture.  Thus  far  this  has  been  successful,  and 
in  every  controversy  of  this  kind  the  high  church 
party  have  secured  the  victory,  and  the  unity  of  the 
church  has  been  preserved.  We  think  the  history 
thus  far  furnishes  an  omen  of  most  portentous 
character  in  regard  to  the  issue  of  such  contentions 
at  present,  and  in  all  time  to  come.  We  have  no 
expectation  that  the  low  church  party  will  ever  gain 
the  ascendency,  or  carry  ultimately  a  single  point. 
Our  reasons  for  this  opinion  will  be  seen  in  the  pro- 
gress of  our  remarks. 

The  present  position  of  the  parties  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  is  not  determined  precisely  by  the  different 
views  which  characterize  the  high  church  and  the 
evangelical  party.  There  has  been  to  some  extent, 
a  breaking  up  of  the  old  lines  of  demarcation,  and  a 
somewhat  modified  arrangement.  The  controversy 
respecting  Puseyism,  is  not  precisely  the  same  as  the 
controversy  which  has  hitherto  prevailed.  To  a 
superficial  observer  it  might  have  been  anticipated, 


12 


perhaps,  that  the  low  church  party  would  have  been 
found,  without  an  exception,  arrayed  against  the 
doctrines  of  the  Tractarians,  and  that  the  high  church 
portion  would  have  been  as  uniformly  friendly  to  the 
Oxford  theology.  But  this,  if  we  correctly  under- 
stand the  matter,  has  not  been  precisely  the  case.  A 
portion  of  those  who  have  been  regarded  as  high 
church,  have  made  as  strenuous  opposition  to  the 
advances  of  this  system  as  have  been  witnessed  in 
any  other  quarter  ;  and  some  who  have  been  regarded 
as  leaders  of  the  evangelical  party,  have  shown  a 
decided  inclination  to  vindicate  the  most  arrogant 
form  in  which  the  spirit  of  the  Oxford  theology  could 
manifest  itself  in  this  free  country.  Those  of  the 
high  church,  moreover,  who  have  resisted  these 
aggressions,  have  shown  no  more  affinity  for  the 
evangelical  portion  than  they  did  before.  In  the 
possible,  but  not  probable  event  of  a  rupture  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  they  would  undoubtedly  be  found 
ranged  with  the  friends  of  the  Tractarian  cause — no 
matter  what  their  arrogance,  and  no  matter  how  near 
they  approximate  to  Rome — rather  than  with  the 
evangelical  party.  This  they  would  do,  not  because 
they  love  Puseyism  more,  but  because  they  love  the 
low  church  principle  less.  We  apprehend  also,  that 
if  the  question  of  a  possible  rupture  should  actually 
come  up  in  the  Episcopal  church,  it  would  be  found 
that  what  there  is  of  the  evangelical  spirit  in  the  other 
party  would  be  suppressed  or  crushed,  rather  than  that 
matters  should  come  to  such  a  result.  Such  is  the 
inborn  horror  in  the  mind  of  a  genuine  Episcopalian 
at  the  very  word  schism — though  the  whole  system 
of  Episcopacy  is  a  schism  of  the  worst  kind  from 
the  proper  sense  of  the  unity  of  the  church  ;  such 
the  love  of  forms,  of  peace  and  of  order ;  such  the 


13 


desire  not  to  expose  themselves  to  the  possible  clanger 
of  vitiating  the  "  succession  ;"  and  such  the  belief, 
in  spite  of  experience,  that  the  free-born  spirit  of 
Christianity  may  live  and  breathe  under  all  the 
incumbent  pressure  of  those  antiquated  forms,  and 
may  move  on  to  the  conquest  of  the  world,  fettered 
and  manacled  as  it  must  be,  that  these  difficulties 
with  Puseyism  would  be  greatly  diminished  in  their 
view,  and  that  no  one  would  dare  to  mention  the 
word  separation. 

But  our  business  now  is  not  directly  with  Pusey- 
ism. We  wish  to  refer  to  the  lines  which  existed 
before  the  slight  irregularity  in  the  ranks  of  the 
parties,  caused  by  the  prevalence  of  the  Tractarian 
theology,  occurred.  The  characteristics  of  the  two 
parties  before  the  present  difficulties  arose  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  we  shall  proceed  to  state  as  we 
understand  them. 

The  views  of  the  high  church  party  are  accurately 
defined,  and  the  points  in  which  they  differ  from  their 
low  church  brethren,  as  well  as  from  all  the  denomi- 
nations of  evangelical  Christians,  are  well  understood. 
They  have  never  made  any  secret  of  them,  and  have 
never  propounded  them  as  if  they  wished  to  practice 
any  concealment,  or  regarded  them  as  mysteries  to 
be  made  known  only  to  the  initiated.  They  hold,  if 
we  understand  them  aright,  to  the  necessity  of  an 
actual,  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  Apostles, 
in  order  to  the  validity  of  the  ministry.  They  hold, 
that  the  ministry  of  the  church  consists  of  three 
orders,  and  that  the  supremacy  is  in  the  bishop ;  that 
all  the  power  of  ordaining  is  in  him,  and  that  no  one 
has  any  right  to  officiate  as  a  minister  of  religion  in 
any  form,  except  in  virtue  of  the  imposition  of  his 
2 


14 

hands.  They  hold,  that  to  him  alone  appertains  the 
right  of  confirmation,  and  that  grace,  quite  desirable, 
if  not  essential  to  salvation,  is  conveyed  by  that  rite. 
They  hold,  that  there  is  no  church  but  the  Episcopal 
church,  and  that  in  any  other  body  of  persons  there 
is  no  valid  ministry,  and  are  no  valid  sacraments. 
They  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
and  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  by  some  kind 
of  opus  operatum.  They  hold,  that  those  who  have 
been  baptized  in  a  proper  manner  are  to  be  brought 
to  the  bishop  and  confirmed,  as  soon  as  they  can  say 
the  creed,  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  the  catechism,  and 
are  to  be  admitted  to  the  church  without  any  special 
inquiry  into  their  spiritual  stale,  or  without  giving 
any  distinct  evidence  of  a  change  of  heart.  They 
hold,  that  such  is  the  efficacy  of  baptism  thus  admin- 
istered, of  confirmation,  of  the  observance  of  the 
eucharist,  and  of  a  connection  with  the  true  apos- 
tolical church,  that  by  this  process  their  salvation 
will  be  secure. 

They  are  opposed  to  revivals  of  religion,  as  the 
term  is  commonly  employed  ;  to  prayer  meetings  ; 
to  "  night  services,"  and  to  all  "  voluntary"  societies 
for  the  spread  of  the  gospel.  They  utterly  refuse, 
as  a  body,  to  give  the  Bible  without  the  Prayer- 
book,  and  religiously  abstain  from  all  connection 
with  any  association  for  promoting  any  religious 
object  out  of  connection  with  "the  Church."  They 
take  no  part  in  a  Bible,  Sunday  school,  tract,  or 
missionary  society,  where  persons  of  other  denomi- 
nations are  concerned  in  the  directorship,  or  where 
their  appearance  could  be  construed  as  an  admission 
that  other  denominations  appertain  to  the  church  of 
Christ.     They  are  seen   on  no  platform  mingling 


15 


with  other  Christians  in  the  promotion  of  the  common 
cause,  and  neither  by  their  contributions,  their 
presence,  nor  their  names,  do  they  lend  any  counte- 
nance to  any  meeting  or  association  which  can  be 
construed  as  a  union  of  different  denominations  of 
Christians  for  any  object  whatever.  As  members 
of  the  church  of  Christ,  as  ministers  of  his  religion, 
they  hold  that  there  can  be  no  common  ground  on 
which  they  can  meet  others.  As  citizens,  as  neigh- 
bours, as  friends  of  literature  ;  as  those  who  may  be 
engaged  in  the  business  of  mending  a  road,  or 
building  a  bridge,  they  may  be  connected  with  others, 
because  these  things  can  not  be  Episcopally  done; 
but  they  go  no  further.  Not  even  in  the  temperance 
cause  will  they  associate  with  others.  Of  this  we 
know  not  exactly  the  reason,  whether  they  are 
unfriendly  to  temperance  principles  themselves,  or 
whether  they  regard  temperance  as  a  part  of  religion, 
and  consider  that  it  is  not  desirable  to  promote  it 
except  somehow  through  the  apostolic  succession. 
We  do  not  recollect  that  they  have  given  to  the 
public  an  opportunity  of  forming  an  opinion  on  these 
points. 

As  a  consequence  of  these  views,  they  regard  all 
other  associations  of  men,  however  numerous  and 
respectable,  as  left  "  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of 
God."  They  are  in  this  respect  on  the  same  plat- 
form with  the  Jew  and  the  Mussulman  ;  the  Japanese 
and  the  Caffrarian.  From  the  true  church  they  are 
"  dissenters."  They  are  without  valid  ordinances, 
without  a  valid  ministry,  and  without  the  promises. 
They  meet  in  conventicles,  not  in  churches ;  they 
listen  to  the  arguings  of  laymen,  not  to  the  teachings 
of  the  authorized  ministers  of  religion.     They  are 


16 

sprinkled  in  infancy  or  immersed  in  riper  years,  by 
those  who  have  no  authority  for  doing  either ;  they 
partake  of  bread  and  wine  which  in  nowise  differs 
from  common  bread  and  wine,  except  that  they  are 
partaken  in  smaller  quantities  and  in  a  "  meeting- 
house ;"  they  are  ministered  unto  by  those  who 
would  commit  sacrilege  by  putting  on  the  surplice 
or  by  going  into  a  pulpit  duly  consecrated  ;  and  they 
are  buried  in  ground  that  has  never  been  consecrated, 
and  by  those  who,  as  they  have  no  right  to  address 
the  living  in  the  name  of  Christ,  have  no  right  to 
officiate  at  the  graves  of  the  dead.  They  may 
indeed  be  saved — but  who  may  not  be?  God  is 
merciful,  and  they  have  the  same  chance  of  salvation 
that  the  better  part  of  the  heathen  have — and  no 
other.  These,  if  we  understand  them,  are  the  leading 
views  of  the  high  church  party.  We  have  designed 
not  to  do  injustice  to  them,  and  we  have  the  means 
of  substantiating  the  correctness  of  this  representa- 
tion by  the  highest  authorities  in  the  Episcopal 
church.* 

*  To  the  view  here  presented,  that  the  tendency  of  the 
high  church  opinions  is  to  "  unchurch"  all  others,  justice 
requires  that  we  should  notice  one  exception.  It  is  the 
only  one  which  has  fallen  under  our  observation.  It  is 
that  of  the  Rt.Rev.  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  of  the  diocese 
of  Pennsylvania.  He  says,  (Tract on  Episcopacy,)  "By 
the  present  writer  this  consequence  [that  of  unchurching 
other  denominations]  is  not  allowed."  He  states  no  rea- 
sons why  it  is  not  allowed,  nor  does  he  attempt  to  show 
how  this  admission  of  the  fact  that  others  are  not  un- 
churched, is  consistent  with  certain  principles  which  he 
has  laid  down.  We  have  never  been  able  to  make  out 
the  consistency  of  the  admission  with  the  views  which  he 
defends  in  that  "  Tract,"  and  we  merely  record  it  as  a 
fact  which  we  regard  as  an  exception  to  the  general  views 


17 

The  views  of  the  low-church  or  evangelical  party, 
are  not  less  accurately  defined.  In  most  of  those 
things  which  characterize  the  high  church,  they  are 
united  with  them.  They  are  not  "  a  whit  behind 
the  chiefest"  of  that  parly  in  the  belief  of  the  apos- 
tolic succession  ;  in  glorifying  the  Prayer-book ;  in 
attachment  to  "  the  Church  ;"  in  the  faith  that  a 
valid  ministry  is  found  only  in  connection  with  pre- 
lacy ;  and  in  strenuous  endeavours  to  promote  the 
interests  of  the  Episcopal  sect.  They  do  no  more 
than  the  highest  Puseyite  would  do,  in  recognizing 
the  ministers  of  another  denomination  as  authorized 
to  preach  the  gospel  or  to  administer  the  sacraments. 
They  never  invite  them  to  preach,  and  never  appear 
with  them  in  any  such  connection  as  to  show  that 
they  regard  them  as  the  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
They  recognize  their  baptism  no  more,  we  believe, 
than  they  would  that  of  laymen,  and,  in  common 
with  their  high-church  brethren,  they  expect  that 
those  who  come  among  them  from  other  churches, 
if  private  members,  will  submit  to  the  rite  of  confir- 
mation ;  if  ministers,  that  they  will  abjure  their 
former  ordination,  and  submit  to  the  imposition  of 

of  that  party.  We  see  no  way  of  explaining-  it,  except 
by  ascribing-  it  to  the  prompting-s  of  a  benevolent  heart, 
which  shrank  from  the  conclusion  to  which  his  reasoning* 
was  tending-,  and  which  led  him  to  express  the  feeling- of 
kindness  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  log-ic.  Such  an  expres- 
sion of  feeling*  we  will  always  honor  wherever  we  find  it. 
We  only  wish,  as  the  feeling-  is  undoubtedly  right,  that 
the  logic  in  the  Tract  had  been  such  as  would  have  been 
consistent  with  it.  Is  that  log-ic  likely  to  be  correct, 
which  would  require  a  man  either  to  suppress  such  a 
feeling-,  or  to  give  vent  to  it  in  the  face  of  all  his  reason- 


18 

the  hands  of  the  prelate.  We  do  not  know  that  in 
a  single  instance  they  have  ever  protested  against 
this  as  improper,  or  even  hinted  that  they  regarded 
the  previous  ordination  as  differing  in  any  way  from 
lay-ordination.  While  they  allow  one  who  has 
been  ordained  by  Papal  hands  to  minister  at  their 
altars  without  being  re-ordained,  and  offer  no  remon- 
strance against  it,  we  suppose  that  there  is  not  a  low- 
church  minister  in  this  land  who  would  not  be 
shocked  if  a  Presbyterian  minister  should  be  admit- 
ted to  the  rank  of  a  "  priest,"  or  even  of  a  "  deacon," 
without  being  re-ordained.  We  think  too,  that  they 
are  as  zealous  for  the  Episcopal  church,  and  for  its 
upbuilding,  as  any  high-churchman  can  be.  It  is  an 
object  never  lost  sight  of  by  an  Episcopalian,  and 
whatever  may  be  the  place  in  which  he  is  ranked  in 
his  controversy  between  the  high  and  low-church,  or 
in  the  disputes  respecting  the  Oxford  theology,  and 
whatever  may  be  the  style  of  his  intercourse  with 
other  denominations,  the  obligation  to  remember  the 
interests  of  the  Episcopal  church  is  never  for  a 
moment  forgotten. 

But  with  these  views,  the  low  churchman  has 
endeavoured  to  blend  certain  others  in  which  he 
greatly  diverges  from  his  high-church  brethren,  and 
in  which  he  assimilates  himself  to  other  denomina- 
tions. He  does  not  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  forms 
for  justification.  He  does  not  believe  in  baptismal 
regeneration.  He  holds  to  the  doctrine  of  regenera- 
tion by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  in  justifica- 
tion solely  by  faith ;  in  sanctification,  not  by  any 
opus  operatum  of  the  sacraments,  but  by  the  word 
and  Spirit  of  God ;  in  the  necessity  of  spiritual  reli- 
gion ;  in  the  duties  of  a  holy  life;  in  the  obligations 


19 

of  steady  self-denial  and  a  separation  from  the  world. 
He  holds  that  they  who  come  to  the  Lord's  table 
should  be  converted  as  a  qualification,  not  that  they 
should  come  to  be  converted.  He  claims  the  ri^ht 
of  not  "  bringing  those  to  the  bishop  to  be  confirm- 
ed," whom  he  does  not  regard  as  having  evidence  of 
true  conversion.  He  would  guard  the  church  from 
the  admission  to  its  ordinances  of  any  who  do  not 
give  evidence  of  true  piety. 

The  low  churchman  is  in  general  a  Calvinist,  and 
frequently  of  the  highest  order.  He  preaches  the 
humbling  doctrines  of  the  cross,  and  advocates  the 
lofty  themes  of  divine  sovereignty  in  the  salvation 
of  men. 

The  low  churchman  believes  in  the  necessity  of 
special  efforts  for  the  salvation  of  men.  He  believes 
that  prayer  meetings  are  adapted  to  promote  the  edi- 
fication of  believers,  and  to  secure  the  salvation  of 
sinners.  He  is  no  enemy  of"  night  meetings,"  and 
is  so  much  the  friend  of  "  protracted  efforts,"  that 
he  unites  cheerfully  in  "  associations"  with  his  own 
brethren,  and  in  Episcopal  churches,  and  seeks  to 
turn  the  bad  and  unauthorized  arrangements  of  his 
own  church,  for  the  observance  of  saints'  days  and 
especially  of  Lent,  into  a  series  of  protracted  preach- 
ing efforts  to  promote  revivals  of  religion. 

The  low  churchman  is  one  who  is  willing  to  act 
with  the  friends  of  religion,  where  he  can  meet  them 
on  common  ground.  He  is  willing  to  engage  in  the 
circulation  of  the  Bible,  though  it  have  not  the  Prayer- 
book  attached  to  it — reserving  his  zeal  for  the  latter 
to  be  manifested  through  a  society  in  his  own  church 
specially  organized  for  that  purpose,  and  reserving 
to  himself  the  right  to  manifest  as  much  zeal  for  that 


20 


as  shall  seem  to  him  to  be  meet.  He  is  willing  to  act 
with  others  in  the  distribution  of  tracts  on  the  common 
topics  of  religion,  and  in  the  establishment  of  Sab- 
bath schools,  even  should  they  not  be  connected  with 
the  Episcopal  denomination.  In  the  cause  of  tempe- 
rance, of  the  Sabbath,  of  promoting  the  gospel  among 
seamen,  and  in  opposition  to  the  arrogancy  and  the 
aggressions  of  the  Papacy,  he  will  meet  with  other 
Christians  in  the  same  committee-room,  or  on  ihe 
same  platform,  but  never  as  clergymen,  or  in  such 
a  way  as  to  imply  that  those  with  whom  he  asso- 
ciates are  to  be  regarded  as  authorized  ministers  of 
the  gospel. 

We  see  thus  in  the  Episcopal  church  two  distinct 
classes  of  men — classes  that  must,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  come  into  frequent  collision.  We  pro- 
pose now  to  examine  the  position  of  the  latter  class, 
especially  in  regard  to  their  relation  to  their  own 
church,  and  to  the  question  whether  they  can  ever 
succeed  in  the  objects  at  which  they  aim.  We  regard 
the  question  as  one  of  great  interest  and  importance, 
not  doubtful  in  our  minds  as  to  the  issue,  but  as  a 
struggle  throwing  light  on  the  nature  of  religion,  and 
as  adapted  to  aid  us  in  determining  whether  prelacy 
is  the  form  of  religion  that  is  revealed  in  the  New 
Testament.  If  the  experiment  should  be  successful, 
it  would  do  something  to  make  us  less  doubtful 
whether  the  ministry  was  organized  with  "  the  three 
orders ;" — if  it  always  has  been  and  must  be  a  fail- 
ure, it  is  to  us  a  clear  demonstration  that  the  church 
was  organized  on  some  other  foundation. 

We  need  not  say,  that  in  the  main  our  sympathies 
are  wholly  with  the  low-church  party.  With  the  aim 
o[  the  other  party  we  have  none ;  but  the  low-church 


21 


party,  so  far  as  they  differ  from  their  brethren  in  the 
Episcopal  communion,  are  aiming  at  the  same  objects 
as  all  the  rest  of  the  evangelical  world,  and  are  en- 
deavouring to  promote  trjose  views  of  religion  which 
we  believe  will  ultimately  triumph.  The  question 
with  us  is  not  whether  the  objects  at  which  they  thus 
aim  are  right,  and  will  ultimately  be  somehow  secured 
on  the  earth,  but  whether  the  Episcopal  church  can 
be  imbued  with  these  principles,  and  whether  they 
will  triumph  in  the  controversies  which  inevitably 
arise  in  their  own  denomination.  Now  in  reference 
to  this  question,  we  shall  state  freely  some  views 
which  seem  to  us  to  put  this  question  to  rest. 

The  first  is,  that  the  object  at  which  they  aim  has 
never  yet  been  accomplished.  The  experience  of  the 
world  has  been  against  it.  We  state  a  position  here 
which  we  think  is  the  result  of  all  experiments,  and 
which  we  challenge  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  to 
refute.     It  is,  that  it  has  never  been  possible 

PERMANENTLY  TO  CONNECT  THE  RELIGION  OF  FORMS 

with  evangelical  religion;  or,  what  amounts  to 
the  same  thing,  that  the  Episcopal  mode  of  worship 
has  never  been  permanently  blended  with  the  objects 
at  which  the  low  churchman  aims.  We  will  first 
refer  to  a  few  facts  sustaining  this  position.  We  shall 
then  take  occasion  to  show  why  it  is  so. 

The  attempt  to  unite  the  religion  of  forms  with  the 
gospel,  has  often  been  made.  There  have  been  good 
men  connected  with  every  form  of  worship.  There 
have  been  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  men  who  have 
maintained  the  doctrines  of  grace  ;  men  who  believed 
in  all  that  constitutes  evangelical  religion;  men  holding 
to  the  entire  depravity  of  men,  the  doctrine  of  re- 
generation by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  neces- 


22 


sity  of  holy  living  and  of  a  close  walk  with  God — 
who  have  endeavored  to  unite  these  things  with  the 
religion  of  forms.  There  have  been,  as  there  are 
now,  those  who  have  been  warm  friends  of  prayer 
meetings,  and  of  revivals,  and  of  efforts  to  spread  the 
gospel  around  the  world,  who  have  sighed  for  the 
spirit  of  freedom  amidst  the  pompous  and  imposing 
ceremonials  of  such  a  religion.  They  have  loved 
sincerely  the  forms  of  religion ;  and  they  have 
loved,  with  an  ardour  which  nothing  could  extinguish, 
the  pure  doctrines  of  grace,  and  the  holy  aspirations 
of  Christianity.  Trained  in  the  bosom  of  a  church 
prescribing  pomp  and  splendour  in  public  worship, 
they  have  brought  to  its  favour  all  the  prejudices  of 
education ;  accustomed  to  use  a  Prayer-book  from 
childhood,  they  love  it  as  they  do  the  home  and  the 
companions  of  their  youth;  sincerely  believing  that 
Episcopacy  is  the  mode  of  worship  prescribed  in  the 
New  Testament,  they  have  been  bound  to  it  by  all 
the  strength  of  conscience;  or  in  lands  where  this  is 
prescribed  by  statute,  and  where  it  is  the  religion  of 
the  state,  they  have  felt  that  every  thing  of  a  tem- 
poral nature  depended  on  adhesion  to  it,  and  have 
sincerely  desired  its  perpetuity.  At  the  same  time 
they  have  loved  evangelical  religion.  They  have 
believed  that  it  is  the  religion  of  the  Bible.  They 
have  not  doubted  that  it  would  finally  prevail.  They 
have  sought,  therefore,  to  diffuse  its  spirit  through  the 
bosom  of  the  Episcopal  church.  What  now  has 
been  the  lesson  which  history  has  taught  us  in  re- 
gard to  the  relation  of  the  religion  of  forms  to  evan- 
gelical religion  ? 

The  Jewish  religion,  in  the  time  of  the  Saviour, 
was  a  religion  of  forms.    It  had  a  strong  resemblance 


23 

in  many  respects  to  Episcopacy,  and  indeed  Episco- 
pacy has  avowedly  borrowed  much  from  it,  and  often, 
defends  itself  by  a  reference  to  the  divinely  appoint- 
ed pomp  and  pageantry  of  the  temple  service.  There 
were,  in  the  time  of  the  Saviour,  as  there  always  had 
been,  some  pure  worshipers  of  God  in  connection 
with  that  system  ;  for  Zacharias  and  Simeon,  Anna, 
Elisabeth,  and  Mary  were  of  that  number.  But  the 
Saviour  originated  the  evangelical  system,  and  de- 
tached it  at  once,  wholly  and  for  ever,  from  the  Jew- 
ish forms.  He  severed  his  whole  church  from  it ; 
required  his  people  to  come  out  of  it ;  pronounced 
his  gospel  to  be  free,  and  never  meant  that  its  free- 
dom should  be  cramped  by  the  religion  of  forms. 
The  rites  which  he  appointed  for  his  religion  were  as 
few  as  possible,  and  the  most  simple  that  can  be  con- 
ceived. He  designated  but  two  as  permanent  rites  in 
the  church,  nor  did  he  appoint  any  other  that  can 
with  any  propriety  be  designated  as  "  sacraments," 
even  if  these  should  be.  The  two  which  he  specified 
are  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  we  venture 
to  say  that  if  every  form  of  religion  ever  propounded 
among  men  were  examined,  two  more  simple  or  unos- 
tentatious rites  could  not  be  found.  As  the  rites  them- 
selves also,  are  the  extreme  of  simplicity,  so  he  made 
every  thing  about  them  as  plain  as  they  possibly 
could  be.  He  prescribed  no  baptismal  font  of  mass- 
ive gold,  silver,  or  marble  ;  but  the  water  taken  from 
a  running  stream,  or  from  a  fountain  bursting  forth 
in  the  desert,  would  answer  all  the  purposes  of  the 
emblem.  He  ordained  no  splendid  communion-ser- 
vice to  contain  the  symbols  of  his  body  and  blood ; 
but  the  plainest  cup  and  platter  would  suit  the  de- 
sign.   As  these  rites  are  as  simple  as  possible,  so  it 


24 

was  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  would  be  as  re- 
mote as  any  could  be  from  abuse.  They  are  the 
last  things  on  which  it  could  be  conceived  to  be  pos- 
sible to  rear  a  gorgeous  superstructure  of  spiritual 
pomp  and  power.  Who  could  have  imagined  that 
the  simple  rite  of  water  baptism  could  ever  be  mag- 
nified into  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  or 
could  become  the  instrument  of  giving  dignity  and 
supremacy  to  the  holy  hands  that  were  appointed 
to  administer  it,  and  thus  of  sustaining  the  arrogant 
claims  of  a  priesthood  in  the  religion  of  forms,  and 
be  so  tortured  by  the  "  cunning  craftiness"  of  men, 
as  to  be  a  substitute  for  the  regenerating  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  And  what  finite  mind  could  have 
anticipated  the  history  of  the  Lord's  Supper?  Who 
could  have  foreseen  what  the  simple  emblems  of 
bread  and  wine  would  be  made  to  become  when  at- 
tached to  a  religion  of  forms,  and  what  use  would 
be  made  of  them  in  banishing  evangelical  religion 
from  the  world?  Who  could  have  imagined  that 
they  would  become  the  principal  support  of  the  most 
extraordinary  claims  ever  set  up  by  a  priesthood 
over  men  ;  that  the  doctrine  would  be  gravely  taught 
and  believed,  that  by  words  of  ceremony  they  would 
be  changed  into  "  the  very  body  and  blood,  the  soul 
and  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God  ;"  that  they  would  yet 
be  borne  along  in  gorgeous  procession,  and  that  prin- 
ces and  kings  would  prostrate  themselves  before 
them  ;  and  that  the  power  of  making  this  wonderful 
transmutation  would  be  supposed  to  give  to  one  class 
of  men  a  sanctity  above  all  others,  and  a  mysterious 
connection  with  the  Deity  elsewhere  unknown  among 
mortals  ?  If  rites  so  simple,  and  so  little  susceptible 
of  abuse,  have  been  thus  made  the  means  of  excluding 


25 

the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  soul,  and  of 
establishing  the  power  of  the  most  mighty  hierarchy 
on  earth,  we  see  one  reason  why  Christ  established 
no  more,  and  why  his  whole  arrangement  was  such 
as  most  effectually  to  detach  his  religion  from  all  con- 
nection with  the  religion  of  forms.  The  Jewish  reli- 
gion, eminently  a  religion  of  forms,  accomplished  its 
object  in  separating  that  people  from  all  others,  and 
in  adumbrating  a  future  spiritual  system.  It  was 
adapted  to  the  age  of  the  world  during  which  it  was 
designed  to  continue,  and  to  the  purpose  of  preparing 
for  a  better  system,  and  though  it  is  undeniable  that 
there  were  holy  men  under  that  system,  yet  its  his- 
tory served  among  other  instructive  lessons  to  teach 
its  own  tendency  to  sink  into  heartless  ceremony,  and 
the  difficulty  of  maintaining  spiritual  religion  in  con- 
nection with  forms ;  and  the  Saviour,  therefore,  de- 
tached his  religion  from  it  for  ever.  As  soon  as  pos- 
sible, the  Jewish  altar  was  thrown  down,  the  priests 
were  disrobed  of  their  gorgeous  vestments,  the  smoke 
of  incense  ceased  to  ascend,  and  the  temple  itself  was 
demolished  to  be  built  no  more.  The  spirit  of  the 
gospel  separated  from  forms  then,  nor  was  it  ever 
to  be  united  with  the  pomp  and  ceremonies  of  the 
ancient  worship. 

From  the  days  of  Constantine,  Christianity  be- 
came a  religion  of  forms.  But  where  was  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel  ?  Where  during  the  dark  ages  did  it 
live?  Has  it  ever  been  known  in  permanent  connec- 
tion with  the  Papal  communion,  or  in  the  Greek,  the 
Armenian,  or  the  Nestorian  churches?  In  all  these 
churches  the  religion  of  forms  has  prevailed,  and  still, 
prevails,  and  their  history  has  been  characterized  by 
an  almost  entire  separation  from  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
3 


26 


tianity.  There  has  been  no  permanent  connection, 
and  if,  under  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  there 
has  been  at  any  time  a  reviving  spirit  of  piety,  after  a 
few  efforts  to  diffuse  itself  through  the  cold  and  slum- 
bering church,  it  has  either  died  away,  or  withdrawn 
where  it  could  breathe  the  air  of  freedom.  To  see 
this,  let  a  few  facts  be  submitted  to  the  attention  of 
candid  men. 

Far  back  in  the  history  of  the  Papal  communion, 
there  was  a  reviving  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Some  pure 
spirits  arose  imbued  with  the  same  love  of  Christ,  and 
feeling  the  same  power  of  religion,  which  prevailed 
in  the  days  of  the  Apostles ;  but  could  they  blend 
their  religion  with  the  prevailing  religion  of  forms  1 
They  withdrew,  and  in  the  peaceful  valleys  of  Pied- 
mont the  Waldenses  worshiped  God  "  in  spirit  and  in 
truth,"  until  the  fires  of  martyrdom  were  lighted  on 
all  their  hills  and  through  all  their  vales,  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  religion  of  forms,  and  Rome  succeeded 
in  nearly  exterminating  them. 

Again  the  spirit  of  vital  piety  was  rekindled  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Papal  church.  Simultaneously,  and 
without  concert,  a  heavenly  influence  breathed  upon 
the  souls  of  Zuingle,  of  Luther,  of  Melancthon,  and 
of  Farel.  They  were  all  in  the  bosom  of  the  Papal 
church ;  all  had  been  reared  in  connection  with  the 
religion  of  forms ;  all  had  every  thing  to  lose  and 
nothing  to  gain  by  a  separation ;  and  all  by  a  sepa- 
ration exposed  themselves  to  the  thunders  of  the 
Vatican — the  fearful  power  that  could  shake  the 
thrones  of  princes  and  cause  monarchs  to  turn  pale 
in  their  palaces — and  to  the  terrors  of  the  civil  arm. 
Yet,  with  every  inducement  to  remain  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Papal  communion  arising  from  education,  from 


27 

their  belief  of  the  heavenly  origin  of  the  Papacy,  from 
the  love  of  peace,  and  from  the  dread  of  martyrdom,  an 
attempt  to  blend  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  that  now  fill- 
ed their  hearts  with  holy  fire  with  the  cold  spirit  of 
the  religion  of  forms,  was  hopeless, — and  hence  the 
Reformation.  In  Germany,  in  Switzerland,  and  in 
France,  as  far  as  the  Reformation  extended,  there 
was  a  final  separation  of  the  two,  nor  was  there  any 
power  of  argument,  or  art,  or  interest,  or  arms,  that 
could  there  unite  them. 

In  England  the  experiment  was  to  be  tried  in  an- 
other manner,  and  with  a  much  better  prospect  of 
success.  It  was  the  experiment  that  was  made  under 
Henry  VIII.,  Edward  VI.,  and  Elizabeth.  There  was 
the  genuine  spirit  of  the  Reformation  in  the  Anglican 
church.  It  reigned  not  indeed  either  in  the  heart  of 
Henry  or  Elizabeth,  but  it  did  in  the  heart  of  Ed- 
ward, and  more  illustriously  still  in  the  hearts  of 
Latimer,  Ridley,  Bradford  and  Cranmer,  and  with 
these  men  there  was  a  sincere  effort  to  blend  the  two 
together.  There  was  every  facility  for  making  the 
experiment  in  as  satisfactory  a  manner  as  possible. 
Every  thing  in  the  protection  of  the  laws,  in  the 
power  of  talent,  eloquence,  learning  and  piety,  that 
could  be  demanded  for  the  successful  prosecution  of 
the  effort,  existed,  nor  could  circumstances  ever  be 
well  imagined  that  were  more  favourable  to  success. 
What  was  the  result  ?  It  is  before  the  world,  and 
the  world  has  it  by  heart.  The  Puritan  spirit  gra- 
dually rose  and  increased.  It  became  chafed,  and 
galled,  and  was  impatient  under  the  fetters  of  form. 
It  sighed  for  freedom  ;  and  in  a  single  day  two  thou- 
sand of  the  best  men  in  the  English  church  left  their 
livings — exposed  themselves  to  poverty,  persecution, 


28 

and  imprisonment,  only  because  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel  could  not  be  permanently  blended  with  the 
religion  of  forms.  Part  of  those  men  went  to  pri- 
son ;  all  were  subjected  to  privations  and  sorrows  in 
their  external  circumstances; — but  the  evangelical 
spirit  was  free,  and  the  "church"  was  left  a  cold, 
dead,  dull,  formal  thing.  The  vital  power  of  the 
Episcopal  communion  had  withdrawn,  and  there 
were  no  earthly  temptations  that  could  ever  again 
induce  the  Puritan  to  seek  a  union  with  the  religion 
of  forms.  The  experiment  had  been  made  under 
the  most  advantageous  circumstances  possible,  and 
it  was  decisive. 

A  portion  of  the  band  of  Puritans,  driven  from 
their  country  to  Holland,  and  then  across  the  ocean, 
found  a  refuge  on  the  rock  of  Ply  month,  and  gave 
their  religion  to  this  great  western  world.  Here  all 
was  free  and  vast.  A  boundless  territory  was  spread 
out  before  them,  and  they  laid  the  foundation  of  a 
religious  system  which  they  intended  should  be  for- 
ever separated  from  a  religion  of  forms.  Its  effect  is 
seen  in  the  religious  activity  and  zeal,  the  intelligence 
and  order,  the  revivals,  and  the  efforts  to  spread  the 
gospel  abroad,  which  distinguish  our  republic  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth. 

But  the  history  of  the  religion  of  forms  in  our 
father-land  is  not  completed.  The  separating  of  the 
Puritans  had  left  the  church  a  dry,  cold,  dead  thing. 
Again,  however,  God  visited  that  church  with  the 
special  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  there  was 
a  reviving  and  quickening  spirit  of  religion.  God 
breathed  upon  the  heart  of  the  Wesleys,  and  of 
Fletcher,  and  of  Whitefield,  and  fired  them  with  as 
devoted  a  zeal  as  had  ever  warmed  the  bosom  of  a 


29 

Puritan.  They  were  in  the  church,  and  were  con- 
verted when  connected  with  it.  They  loved  it.  They 
shrank  back  from  the  very  thought  of  a  separation. 
John  Wesley  lived,  and  laboured,  and  prayed  night 
and  day  that  he  might  not  separate  himself  from  the 
church  in  which  he  was  reared,  but  that  there  might 
be  diffused  through  all  that  communion  the  spirit  of 
evangelical  religion.  Never  was  there  a  more  honest, 
vigorous,  or  persevering  effort  to  unite  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel  with  the  religion  of  forms,  but  in  vain. 
That  vital  part  of  the  church  of  England  which  had 
been  quickened  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  spite  of  every 
effort  to  bind  them  together,  drew  off  by  itself, 
breathing  the  air  of  freedom  and  spreading  the  hea- 
venly fire  over  continents. 

Until  the  present  time,  the  result  of  the  experiment 
has  been  uniform.  The  religion  of  forms  has  never 
been  permanently  blended  with  the  gospel.  The 
experiment  is  again  making  in  our  land  and  in  our 
father-land,  with  what  result  is  a  matter  of  great  in- 
terest to  the  whole  Christian  world,  but  what  that 
result  will  be  no  one  can  reasonably  doubt.  That 
there  should  be  outbreaks  and  collisions ;  that  the 
love  of  revivals  and  of  prayer-meetings,  and  the  pur- 
pose to  mingle  with  other  denominations  in  great 
efforts  to  spread  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  should 
bring  the  patrons  of  these  things  into  conflict  with  the 
high-church  party,  is  to  be  expected.  They  are  the 
regular  results  of  the  existing  state  of  things  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  and  they  cannot  be  avoided.  Such 
conflicts  will  arise,  and  however  much  they  may  be 
suppressed  for  a  time,  and  however  all  parties  may 
unite  in  singing  paeans  to  the  '  unity'  of  the  church, 
yet  the  elements  of  collision,  like  the  pent-up  fires  .of 
3* 


30 

the  volcano,  rage  within.  To  keep  these  elements 
under;  to  prevent  entire  separation  and  a  prostration 
of  the  whole  fabric,  requires  all  the  power  of  autho- 
rity on  the  one  side,  and  all  the  yielding  of  a  Chris- 
tian spirit  on  the  other,  and  a  devout  attachment  to 
prelacy  in  both.  It  is  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  strug- 
gling in  bonds  and  sighing  for  freedom.  The  pre- 
sent state  of  the  Episcopal  church  is  but  the  act- 
ing over  again  of  scenes  which  have  been  played 
from  the  beginning.  The  spirit  of  truth  will  not  be 
bound.  It  does  not  breathe  and  act  freely  when  fet- 
tered with  forms.  It  can  not  go  forth  freely  to  the 
conquest  of  the  souls  of  men,  or  to  the  subjugation 
of  the  world.  If  it  lives,  it  will  be  the  spirit  of  the 
Apostles — unfettered  by  forms;  the  spirit  of  the 
Waldenses,  of  WicklifTe,  of  Luther,  of  Farel ;  of  the 
Puritans,  of  Wesley,  of  Whitefield.  Every  contro- 
versy thus  far  waged,  where  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
has  come  in  conflict  with  the  religion  of  forms,  has 
had  one  of  two  results — either  the  spirit  of  the  gos- 
pel is  suppressed  and  dies  away,  or  the  one  is  sever- 
ed from  the  other  never  to  be  united  again.  They 
never  have  been,  they  never  can  be  permanently 
blended.  Such,  it  requires  little  sagacity  to  foresee, 
must  be  the  result  of  the  present  controversy  be- 
tween the  two  great  parties  in  the  Episcopal  church. 
It  is  just  a  struggle,  whether  the  love  of  prelacy,  and 
the  cry  of  unity,  and  the  power  of  numbers  and  of 
wealth,  and  the  influence  of  the  "  bishops,"  shall  be 
sufficient  to  crush  the  rising  spirit  of  the  gospel ;  or 
whether  there  will  be  vital  energy,  and  independence, 
and  the  love  of  the  pure  doctrines  of  the  gospel, enough 
to  break  away  from  all  this,  and  be  free.  We  should 
rejoice  in  the  latter  result — we  anticipate  the  former 


31 

— and  we  fear  the  Episcopal  church  will  still  continue 
to  be  "  owe." 

We  have  thus  stated  one  truth,  as  it  seems  to  us, 
of  great  importance  in  regard  to  the  position  of  the 
evangelical  party  in  the  Episcopal  church,  and  to  the 
probable  result  of  their  struggles.  In  illustrating 
the  nature  of  their  relative  position,  and  the  difficul- 
ties with  which  they  have  to  contend,  we  now  proceed 
to  remark,  that  they  are  compelled  to  use  a  liturgy 
ichich  counteracts  the  effect  of  their  teaching.  We 
have  stated,  that  they  are  no  less  sincerely  attached 
to  the  Prayer-book,  and  no  less  disposed  to  laud  its 
excellence  above  all  other  uninspired  productions, 
than  the  most  staunch  defender  of  high  church 
principles.  And  yet,  what  is  the  effect  of  the  per- 
petual use  of  this  book  on  an  attempt  to  diffuse 
evangelical  doctrines  through  the  Episcopal  church. 

We  do  not  propose  now  to  go  into  an  examination 
of  the  general  characteristics  of  the  Prayer-book. 
We  propose  to  look  at  it  only  with  reference  to  the 
subject  before  us. 

The  prescription  to  use  the  liturgy  in  the  worship 
of  God,  is  binding  religiously  on  all  the  ministers 
and  members  of  the  Episcopal  church.  The  whole 
service  for  public  worship,  for  marriages,  for  bap- 
tisms, for  funerals,  is  prescribed.  Every  prayer  to 
be  offered  is  set  down  ;  every  portion  of  Scripture  to 
be  read  is  designated,  and  every  address,  with  the 
single  exception  of  the  sermon,  is  already  composed. 
At  a  baptism,  a  marriage,  or  a  funeral,  it  does  not 
appear  from  the  canons,  that  a  minister  is  to  be 
allowed  either  to  offer  an  extemporary  prayer,  or  to 
make  an  extemporary  address.  Even  the  form  of 
prayer  in  a  family  is  prescribed,  and  the  "  master  or 
mistress   having   called  together  as  many  of  the 


32 

family  as  can  conveniently  be  present,  is  to  say  as 
folloivs" — morning  and  evening.  The  directions  for 
public  worship  are  all  positive  and  explicit.  "The 
minister  shall  begin  the  morning  prayer  by  reading 
one  or  more  of  the  following  portions  of  Scripture." 
"  Then  the  minister  shall  say  ;"  "  the  people  shall 
answer  here."  "  Then  the  minister  shall  kneel  and 
say  the  Lord's  prayer;"  "then  likewise  he  shall 
say ;"  "  then  shall  be  said  or  sung  the  following 
anthem;"  "then  shall  follow  a  portion  of  the 
Psalms  ;"  "  then  shall  be  read  the  first  lesson  accord- 
ing to  the  table  or  calendar,"  and  "  before  every 
lesson  the  minister  shall  say,  Here  beginneth  such 
a  chapter  or  verse  of  such  a  chapter  of  such  a  book" 
— and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  Prayer-book.  All  the 
discretion  which  is  allowed,  appears  to  be  in  the 
choice  of  some  half  a  dozen  "collects"  of  half  a 
dozen  lines  each  ;  that  at  the  end  of  the  Venite, 
Beaedicite,  Jubilate,  Benedictus,  Cantate  Domino, 
&c,  there  "  may  be  said  or  sung  the  Gloria  Patri ;" 
that  he  has  a  choice  between  two  forms  of  the  creed 
— a  longer  and  a  shorter  form — and  that  he  may 
introduce  into  the  morning  service  more  or  less  of 
the  quite  tedious  communion  service.  With  these 
unimportant  discretionary  powers,  the  prescrip- 
tions arc  absolute,  and  the  design  was  undoubtedly 
to  render  the  service  of  the  church  wholly  uniform. 
There  is  no  discretion  given  in  regard  to  extemporary 
prayer.  There  is  no  permission  on  any  occasion  to 
go  beyond  what  is  written  down.  If  there  is  any 
special  emergency  requiring  a  form  of  prayer  differ- 
ent from  any  which  are  printed,  it  is  proper  to  wait 
until  it  can  be  prepared  in  the  authorized  quarter  and 
sent  down  to  the  inferior  clergy.     There  is  no  per- 


33 


mission  to  hold  prayer  meetings,  and  the  liturgy  does 
not  contemplate  any  such  thing  as  a  prayer  meeting. 
There  is  not  even  permission  given  to  the  minister  to 
select  and  read  a  portion  of  Scripture  that  shall  have 
any  relation  to  the  subject  of  his  discourse.  If  his  text 
should  be,  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his 
only  begotten  Son,"  and  the  "  lesson"  for  that  day 
should  happen  to  be  that  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Chronicles  which  commences  thus,  "  Adam,  Sheth, 
Enosh,  Kenan,  Mahalaleel,  Jered,  Henoch,  Methuse- 
leh,  Lamech,"  all  that  the  minister  is  to  do,  is  to  say, 
"  here  beginneth  such  a  chapter,"  and  read  on. 

We  are  aware  that  the  low  church  party  do  some- 
times hold  prayer  meetings,  and  that  occasionally  an 
extemporary  prayer  is  offered  after  sermon,  and  we 
will  do  them  the  justice  to  say,  that  so  far  as  we 
have  heard,  their  prayers  are  models  of  a  simple, 
pure,  and  holy  worship,  and  are  such  as  to  prompt 
irresistibly  to  the  expression  of  regret  that  they  are 
not  permitted  by  their  book  to  pour  out  their  souls  in 
this  manner,  and  that  they  are  fettered  by  forms. 
But  we  believe  that  they  themselves  regard  such 
prayers,  and  such  prayer  meetings,  as  a  departure 
from  the  prescribed  mode  of  worship.  We  know 
that  the  high  church  party  consider  them  a  direct 
violation  of  the  prescribed  rules  of  the  church.  We 
consider  them  as  wholly  unauthorized  by  the  church. 
W7e  see  no  permission  of  such  things  ;  we  see  no 
latitude  of  discretion  in  regard  to  such  things ;  we 
believe  that  such  a  thing  as  a  prayer  meeting,  where 
extemporary  prayer  should  be  offered,  and  especially 
by  laymen,  is  a  thing  not  contemplated  by  the  canons 
of  the  Episcopal  church. 

What  then  is  the  inevitable  tendency  of  the  constant 


34 


use  of  the  liturgy  according  to  the  manner  prescribed  ? 
Or,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing  so  far  as  the 
subject  before  us  is  concerned,  what  must  be  the 
effect  of  its  use  even  as  it  is  employed  by  the  low 
church  party,  in  regard  to  the  preaching  of  evan- 
gelical doctrines  ?  They  hold,  we  have  conceded, 
the  great  doctrines  of  grace.  They  teach  the  neces- 
sity of  regeneration  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
They  insist  on  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
They  are  friendly  to  revivals  of  religion.  Do  the 
arrangements  in  the  liturgy  harmonize  with  these 
efforts  ?  So  far  from  it,  we  think,  that  their  teaching 
and  the  Prayer-book  come  into  perpetual  conflict  ; 
and  where  the  Prayer-book  is  to  be  perpetually  used, 
the  result  of  such  a  conflict  cannot  be  doubtful. 

We  do  not  advert  now  to  the  fact,  though  we  might 
do  it,  that  'preaching  in  the  Episcopal  church  is  quite 
a  secondary  thing,  and  that  the  arrangement  is  so 
made  as  to  allow  it  to  produce  as  little  effect  as 
possible.  A  whole  hour  of  the  service,  if  performed 
with  any  degree  of  deliberate  solemnity,  is  occupied 
inevitably  with  the  prayers  and  other  forms  of 
devotion.  After  this  protracted  and  wearisome 
service,  it  can  not  be  supposed  that  the  mind  will  be 
in  a  very  desirable  state  to  listen  to  a  sermon  of  any 
considerable  length.  The  ordinary  length  of  Epis- 
copal sermons — from  fifteen  to  twenty  minutes — we 
regard  as  in  entire  accordance  with  the  arrangements 
in  the  Episcopal  church  ;  a  sermon  of  fifty  minutes 
or  an  hour,  becomes  intolerable.  In  another  com- 
munion— the  mother  of  Episcopacy — the  pulpit  is 
placed  in  a  corner  of  the  church ;  in  the  Episcopal 
church  the  sermon  is  designed  to  occupy  the  same 
relative  position. 


35 

But  the  difficulties  encountered  by  the  evangelical 
party  lie  deeper  than  this.  We  mean,  that  they  are 
compelled  perpetually  to  use  a  liturgy  which  coun- 
teracts all  their  teaching.  The  liturgy  is  opposed  to 
the  views  of  the  low  church  Episcopalian,  and  to  the 
whole  influence  of  his  teaching,  and  is  a  constant 
influence.  To  some  of  the  views  thus  constantly 
brought  before  the  people  in  the  Prayer-book,  opposed 
to  the  evangelical  teaching,  we  will  now  advert. 

There  is,  first,  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, a  doctrine  which  we  regard  as  the  undoubted 
teaching  of  the  Prayer-book,  and  which  presents  a 
constantly  counteracting  influence  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  necessity  of  a  change  of  heart  by  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  accompanying  the  truth.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Prayer-book  is,  that  a  child  that  is 
baptized  in  the  proper  manner,  is  "  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Ghost."  The  language  of  the  liturgy  on 
this  subject  is  as  explicit  as  language  can  be,  and  we 
have  never  seen  any  explanation  by  the  advocates  of 
low  church  views,  which  seemed  to  us  to  have  the 
least  degree  of  plausibility.  The  language  on  this 
subject  in  respect  to  the  public  baptism  of  infant 
children,  is  the  following.  The  "  minister,"  after 
the  baptism  and  making  the  sign  of  the  cross,  is 
commanded  to  "  say" — "  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved, 
that  this  child  is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the 
body  of  Christ's  church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto 
Almighty  God  for  these  benefits,"  &c. — "  We  yield 
thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it 
hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy 
Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by 
adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy  holy 
church."    The  same  doctrine  is  expressed  in  refer- 


3G 

ence  to  the  private  "  baptism  of  children."  After  the 
baptism,  and  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  "  minister" 
is  directed  also  to  "  say" — "  this  child  is  regenerate, 
and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church" — and 
in  like  manner  to  give  thanks,  "  that  it  hath  pleased 
thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to 
receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to 
incorporate  him  into  thy  holy  church."  But  this 
doctrine,  that  by  baptism  there  is  regenerating  grace 
bestowed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  held  not  only  in 
reference  to  infants  and  children,  but  if  possible,  still 
more  clearly  in  reference  to  "  those  of  riper  years." 
In  the  canonical  directions  on  this  subject,  we  find  in 
the  Prayer-book  the  following  things.  (1.)  The 
people  are  told  that  "  all  men  are  conceived  and 
born  in  sin,"  that  "  none  can  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God,  except  they  be  regenerate  and  born  anew  of 
water  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  are  exhorted  to 
"  call  upon  God  the  Father  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  of  his  bounteous  goodness  he  will  grant 
to  these  persons  that  which  by  nature  they  can  not 
have,  that  they  may  be  baptized  with  water  and  the 
Holy  Ghost"  (2.)  The  following  prayers  are  then 
directed  to  be  offered.  "  Mercifully  look  upon  these 
thy  servants;  wash  them,  and  sanctify  them  with 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  they  being  delivered  from  thy 
wrath,  may  be  received  into  the  ark  of  Christ's 
church."  And  again :  "  Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to 
these  persons,  that  they  may  be  born  again,  and  be 
made  heirs  of  everlasting  salvation,  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (3.)  After  baptism,  and  the 
sign  of  the  cross,  the  minister  is  directed  to  say  : — 
"  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved,  that  these-  persons  are 
regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's 


37 

church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto  Almighty  God  for 
these  benefits."  The  thanksgiving  then  follows,  and 
then  this  prayer.  "  Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to  these 
persons ;  that  being  now  born  again,  and  made 
heirs  of  everlasting  salvation  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  they  may  continue  thy  servants,"  &c. 
Here  is  a  regular  order  in  the  teachings,  prayers, 
and  thanksgivings,  all  implying  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  and  all  implying  that  that 
regeneration  is  accomplished  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
There  is  the  exhortation  to  the  people  to  pray  for 
this,  then  the  prayer  actually  offered  for  it,  and 
then  a  solemn  form  of  thanksgiving  that  it  has  been 
done.  And  that  this  is  the  true  teaching  of  the 
liturgy  on  this  subject,  and  that  the  meaning  is  not, 
as  some  Episcopalians  have  endeavored  to  show, 
that  the  word  "  regeneration"  here  means  a  mere 
"  change  of  state,"  or  a  transition  from  the  world 
into  the  church,  seems  to  us  to  be  perfectly  clear — 
for,  (1.)  Such  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  Scripture 
terms,  "  regeneration,"  and  "  being  born  again," 
employed  in  this  service.  In  the  Bible  they  can  not 
be  understood  to  have  this  meaning,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  framers  of  the  liturgy  meant  to 
depart  from  the  Scripture  usage.  (2.)  The  regene- 
ration here  spoken  of*  is  not  a  mere  "  change  of 
state  or  relation."  It  is  a  change  of  regeneration 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  what  is  prayed  for, 
what  is  taught  as  having  been  accomplished,  and 
that  for  which  "  hearty  thanks"  are  given  when  the 
form  of  baptism  is  passed  through.  Now  regenera- 
tion by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
Scriptures,  means  a  definite  thing.  It  is  not  a 
transition  from  heathenism  to  nominal  Christianity  ; 
4 


38 


it  is  not  a  mere  profession  of  religion  ;  it  is  a  work 
on  the  heart  itself,  by  which  that  is  changed,  and  by 
which  the  soul  begins  to  live  anew  unto  God.  (3.) 
This  can  not  be  the  meaning  in  the  liturgy.  Is  it 
possible  to  believe  that  sensible  men  should  gravely 
intreat  a  whole  congregation  to  offer  fervent  prayers, 
that  certain  persons  then  present  might  be  enabled  to 
join  a  church  ?  Is  it  necessary  for  all  this  parade 
and  ceremony,  and  all  this  solemn  invocation  of  the 
special  aid  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  might  be 
enabled  to  change  their  relation  ?  Is  this  a  work 
so  difficult  to  be  performed,  as  to  need  the  special 
interposition  of  heaven  in  the  case  ;  a  work  which  no 
one  could  hope  to  be  able  to  do  without  the  particular 
influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  And  is  religion  in 
the  Episcopal  church  such  a  solemn  trifling  as  this 
representation  would  imply  ?  We  do  not  believe  it; 
and  despite  all  the  efforts  of  the  low  church  Episco- 
palians to  explain  this,  we  believe  that  the  high 
church  and  the  Puseyites  have  the  fair  interpretation 
of  this  part  of  the  liturgy,  that  it  is  intended  to  teach 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  and  that  this 
will  be  the  impression  ever  made  on  the  great  mass 
of  those  who  use  the  Prayer-book. 

Now  these  prayers,  teachings,  and  thanksgivings, 
occur  constantly.  Whenever  an  infant  or  an  adult 
is  to  be  baptized,  the  low  churchman  as  well  as  the 
high  churchman,  is  compelled  to  publish  this  doctrine. 
He  has  no  discretion.  The  whole  service  from 
beginning  to  end  is  to  be  read  through,  and  no  matter 
what  may  be  his  public  teaching  as  a  preacher,  or 
his  private  views,  here  he  is  under  a  necessity  of 
teaching  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  *He 
gives  public  thanks  in  reference  to  every  child,  as 


39 

well  as  every  adult,  that  is  baptized  and  sealed  with 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  that  he  is  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  made  an  heir  of  everlasting  life. 
What  will  be  then  the  force  of  his  preaching  on  the 
subject  of  the  new  birth,  or  a  change  of  heart  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  term  ?  What  impression 
will  be  made  on  those  already  "  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost"  in  baptism,  in  regard  to  this?  Can 
such  preaching  be  intended  for  them  ?  Can  it  be 
applicable  to  any  but  the  heathen  and  the  unbaptized  ; 
to  pagans,  scoffers,  and  "  dissenters  ?"  Are  not  all 
others  already  born  again  ? 

A  second  difficulty  of  a  similar  kind  derived  from 
the  liturgy,  with  which  the  evangelical  churchman 
is  obliged  to  contend,  relates  to  the  doctrine  of 
"  confirmation."  If  we  understand  the  views  of 
low  churchmen,  they  accord  with  our  own  in  regard 
to  the  necessity  of  a  change  of  heart,  and  of  evidence 
of  personal  piety,  as  qualifications  for  communion. 
They  do  not  suppose  that  regenerating  grace  is 
conferred  either  by  confirmation  or  the  "  eucharist," 
nor  do  they  hold  that  persons  should  be  admitted  to 
either,  without  evidence  of  personal  religion.  We 
believe  that  they  are  sincerely  aiming  to  guard  the 
Lord's  table  from  the  approach  of  all  who  do  not 
give  evidence  that  they  are  truly  "  born  again" — not 
by  baptism,  bufby  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God. 

They  are  undoubtedly  right  in  these  views,  but  are 
these  the  views  of  their  liturgy?  Does  the  Prayer- 
book  contemplate  this  ?  Have  they,  as  Episcopa- 
lians, a  right  to  insist  on  this,  and  to  exclude  from 
"  confirmation"  and  the  Lord's  supper,  all  who  do 
not  give  them  evidence  that  they  are  truly  converted, 
or  are  truly  pious  ?     We  think  they  have  not ;  and 


40 


that  in  their  efforts  on  this  subject  they  are  not  only 
departing  from  their  own  standards,  but  are  in  the 
very  matter  compelled  to  use  a  liturgy,  the  tendency 
of  which  is  to  counteract  and  render  nugatory  all 
their  own  instructions  and  efforts.  We  believe  that 
the  Prayer-book  does  not  contemplate,  in  order  to 
confirmation,  any  other  regeneration  than  that  of 
water-baptism,  or  any  other  qualification  than  that 
of  following  out  the  arrangement  at  baptism.  In 
support  of  this,  we  turn  at  once  to  the  Prayer-book 
itself,  and  find  the  arrangements  there  contemplated 
in  reference  to  "  confirmation"  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
to  be  the  following.  The  minister  is  directed  to  say, 
not  to  the  parents  of  the  child,  but  to  the  "  godfathers 
and  godmothers,"  after  baptism  is  administered,  "Ye 
are  to  take  care  that  this  child  be  brought  to  the 
bishop  to  be  confirmed  by  him,  so  soon  as  he  can  say 
the  creed,  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  is  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  other  parts 
of  the  church  catechism  set  forth  for  that  purpose." 
We  observe  here  no  requirement  of  any  change  of 
heart,  or  of  any  evidence  of  piety  whatever.  We 
do  not  believe  that  an  acquaintance  with  the  creed, 
the  Lord's  prayer,  the  ten  commandments,  and  the 
church  catechism,  necessarily  infers  the  possession 
of  renewing  and  saving  grace,  and  as  these  are  all 
that  are  specified,  we  do  not  see  what  right  any 
churchman  has  to  add  thereto.  To  us,  the  only 
question  which  it  would  seem  to  be  proper  to  pro- 
pound to  a  candidate  for  confirmation  would  be, 
whether  he  could  "  say  the  creed,  the  Lord's  prayer, 
the  ten  commandments,"  and  the  "  parts  of  the 
church  catechism  set  forth  for  that  purpose."  Why 
has  the  minister  a  right  to  require  any  thing  more  ? 


41 


Why  is  he  any  more  at  liberty  to  demand  evidence 
of  what  he  regards  as  a  change  of  heart,  than  he 
has  to  insist  that  the  candidate  shall  be  familiar  with 
the  Westminster  Confession  or  the  Saybrook  Plat- 
form ?  As  these  are  all  the  requirements  specified, 
we  naturally  turn  to  "  the  other  parts  of  the  church 
catechism  set  forth"  with  reference  to  the  rite  of 
confirmation,  to  inquire  whether  that  contemplates 
a  change  of  heart  as  a  qualification  for  that  rite. 

The  church  catechism  has  the  following  title  in 
the  Prayer-book,  "  A  catechism  ;  that  is  to  say,  An 
Instruction,  to  be  learned  by  every  person  before  he 
is  brought  to  the  Bishop  to  be  confirmed  by  the 
Bishop."  The  qualification  which  is  here  specified, 
in  accordance  with  that  which  is  stated  at  the  baptism 
as  necessary  in  order  to  confirmation,  is  not  that 
there  shall  be  evidence  of  a  change  of  heart,  or  any 
vital  transformation  of  character  after  baptism,  but 
that  this  catechism  has  been  learned,  that  is, 
committed  to  memory,  before  he  is  brought  to  the 
bishop. 

This  catechism  contains  the  creed,  the  ten  com- 
mandments, the  Lord's  prayer,  and  a  few  questions 
and  answers  growing  out  of  each,  and  on  the  nature 
of  the  sacraments.  The  question  is,  with  what 
qualifications  and  character  one  would  "  be  brought 
to  the  bishop"  who  should  have  strictly  complied  with 
the  directions  in  the  Prayer-book?  Would  it  be 
necessary  that  he  should  furnish  evidence  of  a 
change  of  heart,  or  would  it  be  right  to  reject  his 
application  for  the  communion,  if  he  could  "  say 
the  creed,  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  had  learned  the  other  parts  of  the  church 
catechism   set   forth   for    that    purpose?"      These 


42 


qualifications  may  be  learned  from  a  few  of  the 
questions  directed  to  be  proposed  to  the  candidate, 
and  the  answers  which  he  is  required  to  give.  The 
first  thing  which  we  meet  with  is  the  odious  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration — the  elementary  idea  of 
Episcopacy  as  it  is  in  the  Prayer-book,  and  a  doctrine 
on  which  all  that  is  required  to  be  said  by  the 
candidate  is  based.  "  Question.  What  is  your 
name  1  Ans.  N.  or  M.  Quest.  Who  gave  you 
this  name?  Ans.  My  sponsors  in  baptism; 
wherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child 
of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Here  we  would  propound  a  "  question" 
to  those  Episcopalians  who  endeavour  to  show  that 
regeneration  in  the  Prayer-book  does  not  mean  a 
change  of  heart,  but  a  change  of  state.  It  is  this. 
What  more  can  there  be  in  the  new  birth,  or  in 
regeneration  as  effected  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  than 
to  be  made  "  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God, 
and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?"  Yet 
all  this  the  candidate  is  to  affirm  was  secured  to  him 
in  baptism.  The  same  doctrine  we  have,  affirmed 
again,  if  possible,  in  still  stronger  terms  in  this  same 
catechism  which  is  to  be  "  learned."  "  Quest.  What 
is  the  outward  visible  sign  or  form  in  baptism  ?  Ans. 
Water;  wherein  the  person  is  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Quest.  What  is  the  inward  and  spiritual 
grace  1  Ans.  A  death  unto  sin  and  a  new  birth  unto 
righteousness:  For  being  by  nature  born  unto  sin, 
and  the  children  of  wrath,  we  are  hereby  made  the 
children  of  grace."  That  all  this  is  supposed  to  be 
conferred  by  baptism,  is  apparent  from  the  previous 
answers  on  the  nature  of  the  sacraments.     "  Quest. 


& 


43 


How  many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his 
church  1  Ans.  Two  only,  as  generally  necessary 
unto  salvation;  that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Quest.  What  meanest  thou  by  this 
word  Sacrament  ?  Ans.  I  mean  an  outward  and 
visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  given 
unto  us,  ordained  by  Christ  himself;  as  a  means 
whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge  to 
assure  its  thereof."  The  necessity  of  grace  is  not 
indeed  any  where  denied,  but  it  is  affirmed  here,  as 
it  is  implied  every  wherein  the  Prayer-book,  thatthe 
grace  is  imparted  at  baptism,  and  that  the  "  invisible 
sign"  and  the  "  inward  grace"  go  together. 

With  these  views,  and  having  "  learned"  to  say 
these  things,  the  candidate  is  to  be  brought  to  the 
bishop  to  be  confirmed.  We  are  ready  to  acknow- 
ledge, that  many  or  most  of  the  questions  directed 
to  be  propounded  to  the  candidate  are  solemn  and 
pertinent.  On  the  supposition  that  they  were  pro- 
pounded to  one  who  had  been  truly  converted,  they 
are  such  questions  as  ought  to  be  proposed  to  all  who 
make  a  profession  of  religion.  But  what  is  their 
weight,  or  power,  or  pertinency,  when  addressed  to 
one  who  is  taught  to  say  that  by  infant  baptism  he 
was  "  made  a  child  of  God,  a  member  of  Christ, 
and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and 
that  his  sponsors  made  certain  promises  for  him  in 
baptism  which  he  has  come  now  to  relieve  them 
from,  by  ratifying  them  himself  7 

Now  what  will  be  the  effect  of  this  standing  and 
stereotyped  system  of  instruction  on  the  preaching 
of  the  evangelical  part  of  the  Episcopal  church? 
They  aim  to  teach  a  different  thing  from  this.  They 
strive  to  teach,  and  they  really  believe,  that  water 


44 

baptism,  however  administered,  does  not  impart  all 
the  grace  which  is  needful  to  the  salvation  of  the 
soul.  But  here  stands  this  catechism  which  they  are 
to  teach,  and  which  conveys  lessons  so  plain  that  it 
is  supposed  a  child  may  understand  them,  and  alas, 
so  plain  that  we  fear  they  are  understood  and 
believed  by  the  great  mass  of  those  who  are 
"  brought  to  the  bishop  to  be  confirmed."  We  can 
easily  imagine  what  the  effect  would  be,  if  in  a 
Congregational  or  Presbyterian  church,  all  the  child- 
ren were  to  be  taught  that  regeneration  was  imparted 
by  baptism  properly  administered,  and  that  all  they 
had  to  do  in  order  to  be  qualified  for  the  communion, 
was  to  "  learn  to  say  this."  Where  would  be  our 
revivals  of  religion? 

We  are  aware  that  the  evangelical  party  in  the 
Episcopal  church  endeavour  to  evade  this.  We 
know  that  many  of  them  insist  that  the  candidates 
for  confirmation  shall  give  evidence  to  them  that 
they  are  truly  converted,  and  that  by  the  exercise  of 
what  they  seem  to  regard  as  their  right,  they  restrain 
those  from  confirmation  whom  they  do  not  judge  to 
be  qualified  for  the  communion.  Aware  of  the 
obvious  and  dangerous  tendency  of  the  system  as 
set  down  in  the  Prayer-book,  they  claim  the  right  of 
not  presenting  to  the  bishop  for  confirmation  those 
whom  they  do  not  regard  as  qualified  for  it.  We 
have  no  doubt  that  in  doing  this  they  are  acting  in 
accordance  with  the  New  Testament,  which  plainly 
teaches  that  repentance  and  faith  are  indispensable 
qualifications  for  the  Lord's  table.  But  is  this  Epis- 
copacy ?  Have  they  this  right  according  to  the 
canons  of  their  own  church  ?  We  think  not.  We 
are  willing  to  allow  that  there  must  be  some  discre- 


45 

tion  allowed  to  the  officiating  minister  or  rector  of  a 
parish  in  regard  to  those  who  are  to  be  presented,  as 
the  fair  rules  of  interpretation  seem  to  demand  that 
he  shall  not  be  required  to  present  those  who  are 
open  infidels,  or  who  are  grossly  immoral.  But  has 
he  a  right  to  put  his  own  interpretation  on  what 
constitutes  a  proper  qualification  ;  to  say  that  baptism 
does  not  mean  regeneration  ;  that  the  child  that  was 
baptized  was  not  "  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the 
child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ;"  that  it  has  not  "  pleased  God  to  regene- 
rate him  with  his  Holy  Spirit"  when  he  was  baptized: 
but  that  another  kind  of  regeneration  is  necessary, 
and  to  withhold  him  from  confirmation  until  he  has 
himself  the  evidence  that  he  is  born  again  1  Has  he 
a  right  to  set  his  own  views  thus  against  the  teaching 
of  the  church,  and  to  insist  that  his  views  shall  be 
complied  with  contrary  to  the  obvious  meaning  of 
the  canons,  and  to  the  almost  unbroken  custom  of 
the  church?  We  think  not.  We  think  that  by 
becoming  an  Episcopal  minister,  he  binds  himself  to 
act  in  accordance  with  the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
liturgy  in  this  respect,  and  that  however  his  soul 
may  revolt  at  it,  and  however  contrary  all  this  may 
be  to  his  convictions  of  what  is  taught  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  long  as  he  chooses  to  remain  in  the 
church,  he  has  no  discretion.  He  is  the  servant  of 
the  church.  He  has  received  this  Prayer-book  as 
his  guide,  and  it  is  his  to  carry  out  its  views.  If  he 
is  dissatisfied  with  them,  the  way  is  clear.  It  is  to 
leave  the  communion  ;  it  is  not  to  introduce  and 
defend  practices  contrary  to  the  elementary  concep- 
tions of  Episcopacy. 

There  is  another  thought.    The  church  may  be 


46 


regarded  as  making  a  sort  of  compact  with  every 
child  that  is  duly  baptized,  that  if  he  will  comply 
with  her  regulations,  he  shall  be  entitled  at  the  proper 
time  to  whatever  advantage  there  may  be  in  her  full 
fellowship  and  favour.  There  is  a  pledge  given, 
through  the  sponsors  at  baptism,  that  if  the  course 
of  life  which  is  then  recommended  is  pursued,  the 
child  as  soon  as  he  can  say  the  creed,  the  ten 
commandments,  and  has  been  suitably  instructed  in 
the  other  parts  of  the  catechism,  shall  be  entitled  to 
the  privilege  of  confirmation.  We  believe  that  he 
may  forfeit  this  by  an  unholy  and  wicked  life,  but 
not  by  any  interpretation  which  his  pastor  may 
choose  to  put  on  the  terms  of  the  compact  implying 
that  he  was  not  made  a  member  of  Christ  and  a 
child  of  God.  On  this  subject,  we  think,  the  case 
is  wholly  parallel  with  that  of  one  who  becomes  a 
"  candidate  for  orders"  in  the  Episcopal  church ; 
and  as  such  a  candidate,  if  he  complies  with  the 
canons  in  the  case,  has  a  right  to  ordination  in  the 
church,  so  has  a  youth  who  has  been  baptized,  and 
who  has  learned  to  say  what  is  taught  him,  a  right 
to  confirmation.  The  right  in  the  one  case  is  as 
clear  as  in  the  other.  On  this  subject,  and  with 
reference  to  this  principle,  we  shall  here  submit  the 
views  of  a  gentleman  who  deservedly  occupies  a 
very  prominent  position,  not  only  in  the  Evangelical 
portion  of  the  Episcopal  church,  but  in  the  ministry 
of  this  country,  in  regard  to  the  ordination  of  Mr. 
Arthur  Carey.  The  reasoning,  mutatis  mutandis, 
applies  as  well  to  the  case  before  us  as  to  the  ordi- 
nation of  Mr.  Carey. 

"It  becomes,  therefore,  a  very  important  question 
to  consider,  what  are  the  rights  of  a  candidate  for 


47 


orders.  In  doing  this,  I  shall  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  refer  to  particular  canons,  which  are  well  known, 
but  to  consider  the  course  through  which  a  candidate 
is  led  by  the  authority  and  the  appointment  of  the 
church.  Our  canons  lay  open  this  path  with  great 
distinctness.  They  also  guard  it,  and  limit  it,  with 
very  marked  and  peculiar  restraints.  The  question 
is,  does  a  perfect  compliance  with  all  these  directions 
and  restraints  give,  from  the  church  to  the  candidate, 
a  right  to  expect  and  to  claim  his  orders  at  the  last, 
nothing  appearing  in  any  legal  way  to  vitiate  this 
performance  of  his  required  cause  ?  A  young  man 
is  invited  to  become  a  candidate  for  orders,  for  the 
plan  laid  out  for  him  amounts  to  an  invitation.  He 
obtains  his  certificates  of  personal  character,  and  is 
regularly  received  and  recorded  by  the  bishop  as  a 
candidate.  He  pursues  his  prescribed  course  of 
studies  under  the  direction  of  his  bishop.  He  passes 
satisfactorily  to  the  bishop  and  presbyters  his  required 
examination.  He  presents  his  regular  certificates 
for  ordination.  He  subscribes  the  required  declara- 
tion of  conformity.  He  has  thus  finished  and 
completed  his  prescribed  course  of  education  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  authorities  under  which  he  has 
been  placed.  Now  has  he  acquired  a  right  upon  the 
faith  of  the  church,  with  whose  prescription  he  has 
fully  complied,  to  the  ordination  which  he  seeks  ?  It 
must  be  granted,  of  course,  that  if  his  qualifications, 
mental  or  moral,  are  ultimately  found  insufficient, 
he  may  be  justly  rejected.  If  his  examining  bishop 
and  presbyters  are  dissatisfied  with  the  one,  they 
have  certainly  the  right  to  reject  him  there.  If  any 
persons  are  acquainted  with  moral  crimes,  which,  if 
known,  would  actually  overturn  all  the  worth  and 


48 


influence  of  his  certificates  of  character,  they  may 
declare  them  at  the  very  last  moment,  and  he  may 
be  arrested  there.  But  if  his  examinations  have 
been  satisfactory  to  the  persons  appointed  to  direct 
them,  and  his  character  is  unstained  with  moral 
crime,  has  he  not  a  right  secured  to  him  to  the 
ordination,  for  which  he  has  fulfilled  his  appointed 
preparation  ?  Or  is  it  to  be  considered  by  him,  and 
for  him,  utterly  uncertain,  to  the  very  last  moment, 
whether  he  shall  be  allowed  to  gain  the  object  of  his 
wish  ?  May  he  finish  his  curriculum  of  study,  and 
fulfil  every  requisition  of  the  church  under  whose 
care  he  is  placed,  receive  the  approbation  of  the  chief 
ministers  appointed  over  him,  gain  all  the  required 
certificates  of  unspotted  character,  and  be  admitted 
to  record  his  name  in  the  bishop's  register,  to  the 
constitutional  promise  of  conformity  to  the  doctrine 
and  discipline  of  the  church,  and  thus  have  his 
acceptance  to  orders  as  it  were  acknowledged  to 
him,  and  his  mind  authorized  to  rest  in  peaceful 
expectation  of  his  ordination,  and  yet  may  he  be 
exposed  to  be  arrested,  in  the  very  attainment  of  his 
desire,  by  the  possible  judgment  of  two  persons  in 
the  assembled  congregation,  that  he  is  deficient  or 
erroneous  in  religious  doctrine,  or  theological  train- 
ing? I  confess  this  amounts  in  my  view  to  extreme 
oppression.  What  young  man  of  honourable  and 
ingenuous  feelings  would  be  willing  to  expose  himself 
to  this  possible  disgrace,  and  this  entire  uncertainty 
of  prospect?  Or  what  Christian  parent  would  be 
willing,  in  the  face  of  such  a  hazard,  to  commit  his 
son  to  the  faith  and  guardianship  of  a  church,  whose 
system  of  law  was  so  insecure,  and  so  destitute  of 
all  protection  to  his  character  or  prospects  ?     Yet  if 


49 


the  principle  that  a  final  protest,  founded  upon  the 
personal  suspicion  or  conviction  of  any  persons,  that 
the  theological  attainments  and  preparation  of  the 
candidate  are  insufficient  or  unsound,  is  to  be  of 
necessity  regarded,  and  acted  upon  by  the  bishop 
ordaining,  to  what  other  result  than  this  shall  we  be 
brought  1  Will  it  not  completely  unsettle  our  whole 
church,  in  thus  undermining  the  just  prospects  and 
rights  of  the  ministry  at  the  very  commencement  of 
their  course  1  Will  not  the  secret  reservation  of 
such  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  power,  amount  to  a 
complete  exclusion  of  desirable  candidates  from  our 
ministry  1  I  am  necessarily  led,  therefore,  from 
these  considerations  to  the  conviction,  that  there  are 
rights  secured  to  the  candidate,  upon  the  implied  faith 
of  the  church.  The  connection  seems  to  me  to  have 
the  aspect  of  a  mutual  contract.  The  candidate 
voluntarily  yields  himself  to  restraints  and  laws,  to 
which  he  was  not  before  subject,  to  gain  advantages 
and  benefits,  which  are  thus  promised  and  secured  to 
him.  The  church  therefore  comes  under  an  obliga- 
tion to  bestow  upon  him,  on  the  fulfilment  of  his 
part  of  the  contract,  the  advantages  of  a  ministry, 
to  which  it  has  encouraged  him  to  look;  and  he  in 
consequence,  has  a  right  to  the  result  of  his  labours, 
which  can  not  be  justly  withheld  from  him?"  * 

Now  with  these  principles,  we  do  not  see  how  a 
minister  of  the  Episcopal  church  can  refuse  to  present 

*  Letter  of  the  Rev.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  D.  D.,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Arthur  Carey,  published  in 
the  Episcopal  Recorder,  October,  1843.  This  letter  whs 
understood  at  the  time  of  the  publication  to  have  been 
written  by  Dr.  Tyng,  and  in  a  subsequent  number  of  the 
Recorder  this  is  admitted. 
5 


50 


a  candidate  for  confirmation  who  has  complied  with 
the  directions  in  the  rubric,  even  though  he  should 
not  give  him  evidence  that  his  heart  was  changed. 
One  of  the  difficulties,  then,  with  which  the  evan- 
gelical party  has  to  contend,  is,  that  the  grand,  the 
leading  object  of  an  evangelical  ministry  every  where 
— the  conversion  of  the  soul  to  God  by  the  truth,  the 
quickening  of  a  spirit  dead  in  sin  by  the  preached 
gospel,  the  conversion  and  salvation  of  the  lost  by 
the  mighty  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit — meets  with 
this  counteracting,  this  all-pervading  influence  in  the 
Prayer-book  ;  and  that  despite  his  private  convictions 
and  all  his  sense  of  what  is  right  and  true,  he  is 
under  the  high  obligation  of  his  ministerial  vows 
to  act  as  if  a.  baptized  child  were  made  "  regenerate 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  was  "  a  member  of 
Christ,  a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

Our  next  remark  in  regard  to  the  position  of  the 
evangelical  party,  is,  that  there  are  no  arrangements 
or  provisions  in  the  liturgy  for  promoting  their  pecu- 
liar and  distinctive  efforts,  or  which  contemplate  such 
efforts.  In  looking  over  the  Prayer-book  which  the 
low-churchman,  in  common  with  all  other  Episcopa- 
lians, is  under  an  obligation  constantly  to  use,  the 
question  at  once  occurs  whether  these  things  at 
which  he  distinctively  aims  are  contemplated  there? 
Do  they  fall  in  with  the  design  of  the  Prayer-book  ? 
Was  it  the  intention  of  the  authors  of  the  Prayer- 
book  to  promote  them,  and  have  they  made  arrange- 
ments for  them?  Or  are  the  peculiar  things  which 
constitute  the  characteristics  of  the  low-church  party, 
and  which  they  are  endeavouring  so  zealously,  and 
with  so  much  of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  to  promote, 
things    which   they   have  superinduced   upon    the 


51 


liturgy,  and  which  they  are  compelled  to  carry 
forward  by  a  system  of  independent  arrangements  1 
We  are  constrained  to  believe  that  the  latter  is  the 
case,  for  the  following  reasons. 

1.  We  think  that  Christian  missions  to  the  heathen 
are  not  contemplated  by  the  Prayer-book.  They 
were  not  regarded  as  distinct  objects  of  Christian 
effort  at  the  time  when  the  Prayer-book  was  made, 
and  it  has  not  been,  and  we  presume  could  not  now 
so  be  moulded,  as  to  adapt  it  to  the  present  views  of 
protestant  Christians  in  their  efforts  to  spread  the 
gospel  around  the  world.  To  say  nothing  of  the 
cumbrous  and  unwieldy  nature  of  the  forms  of  Epis- 
copacy in  reference  to  missions — of  the  perplexities 
which  must  meet  a  missionary  who  should  attempt 
to  go  through  the  liturgy  in  a  heathen  community — 
of  the  changes  of  vestments  and  postures  which  it 
contemplates,  the  alternations  from  prayer  to  praise, 
from  reading  now  by  the  priest  and  now  by  the  peo- 
ple— of  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  contemplated 
necessity  of  responses  on  the  part  of  the  people,  there 
are  other  things  which  lead  us  to  think  that  the 
Prayer-book  was  not  designed  to  be  adapted  to  mis- 
sionary operations.  There  are  no  references  to 
such  efforts;  no  prayers  directed  to  be  offered- for 
the  success  of  missions ;  no  allusions  to  churches 
gathered  among  the  heathen ;  no  petitions  that  the 
people  may  be  imbued  with  the  missionary  spirit ; 
no  supplications  that  the  missionary  in  heathen  lands 
may  be  sustained  in  his  trials,  and  encouraged  in  his 
work.  We  believe  that  a  congregation  of  Episco- 
palians might  use  the  Prayer-book  any  given  time, 
and  strictly  conform  to  all  the  prescriptions  of  the 
rubric,  and  never  have  the  missionary  spirit  excited 


52 


in  the  least  conceivable  degree,  and  never  dream, 
from  any  use  of  that  book,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Christian  church  to  spread  the  gospel  around  the 
world.  We  have  reflected  with  some  care  on  the 
forms  of  prayer  there  prescribed,  and  we  have  been 
able  to  recall  in  all  the  petitions  and  all  the  collects 
only  the  following  that  has  any  bearing  on  this  sub- 
ject— unless  the  incessant  repetition  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  morning,  mid-day  and  evening,  and  at  all 
times,  be  an  exception — a  repetition  amounting,  as  far 
as  the  use  of  that  beautiful  form  can  be  made  to,  to  the 
pattoXoyia  so  pointedly  condemned  by  the  Saviour, 
(Matt.  6, 7) — a  repetition  which  seems  to  be  intended 
to  be  a  substitute  for  all  sorts  of  petitions  that  ought  to 
be  offered.  We  find  the  following  petitions,  and  those 
only,  bearing  on  missions.  The  first  occurs  in  the 
"  Prayer  for  all  Conditions  of  Men."  "O  God, 
the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  all  mankind,  we 
humbly  beseech  thee  for  all  sorts  and  conditions  of 
men,  that  thou  wouldst  be  pleased  to  make  thy  ways 
known  unto  them,  thy  saving  health  unto  all  na- 
tions." This  occurs  again  in  the  evening  prayer, 
and  this,  besides  the  petition  in  the  Lord's  prayer,  is 
the  solitary  petition  which  is  regularly  offered  by  the 
whole  Episcopal  church  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath, 
for  the  universal  spread  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Be- 
side this,  in  one  of  the  "  collects,"  for  Good  Friday, 
designed  to  be  used  but  once  in  the  year,  we  find  the 
following  petition: — "O  merciful  God,  who  hast 
made  all  men,  and  hatest  nothing  that  thou  hast 
made,  nor  desirest  the  death  of  a  sinner,  but  rather 
that  he  should  be  converted  and  live ;  have  mercy 
upon  all  Jews,  Turks,  infidels  and  heretics,  and  take 
from  them  all  ignorance,  hardness  of  heart,  and  con- 


53 

tempt  of  thy  word,  and  so  fetch  them  home,  blessed 
Lord,  to  thy  flock,  that  they  may  be  saved  among 
the  remnants  of  the  true  Israelites,"  &c.     The  fact 
here  adverted  to  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  in 
the  numerous  instances  in  which  "  collects"  are  ap- 
pointed to  be  said,  occasions  are  constantly  occurring 
where  it  would  seem  almost  unavoidable  to  make 
some  allusion,  and  to  offer  some  petition,  for  the  spread 
of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen,  and  for  the  success 
of  Christian  missions.     Thus  in  the  collect  for  "  The 
Epiphany,  or  the  Manifestation  of  Christ  to  the  Gen- 
tiles," we  have  this  prayer :  "  0  God,  who  by  the 
leading  of  a  star  didst  manifest  thy  only  begotten 
Son  to  the  Gentiles,  mercifully  grant  that  we,  who 
know  thee  now  by  faith,  may  after  this  life  have  the 
fruition   of  thy   glorious    Godhead,   through   Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord."     Thus  in  the  collect  on  the  "  Con- 
version of  St.  Paul :"  "  O  God,  who  through  the 
preaching  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Saint  Paul,  has  caused 
the  light  of  the  gospel  to  shine  throughout  the  world, 
grant,  we  beseech  thee,  that  we,  having  his  wonderful 
conversion   in  remembrance,  may  show  forth  our 
thankfulness  unto  thee  for  the  same,  by  following 
the  holy  doctrines  which  he  taught,  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord."     So  on  "  St.  Peter's  Day,"  and 
"St.  James  the  Apostle,"  and   "St.  Bartholomew 
the   Apostle,"    and    "  St.   Matthew   the   Apostle," 
"  St.  Michael  and  all  Angels,"  "  St.  Simon  and  St. 
Jude,  Apostles,"  and  "  All  Saints  Day,"  we  have 
the  same  utter  want  of  allusion  to  the  Christian  duty 
of  spreading  the  gospel — as  if  none  of  these  Apostles 
had  ever  done  any  thing  in  such  a  cause,  or  as  if 
"  St.  Michael"  and  "  All  the  Saints"  had  no  interest 
in  the  universal  diffusion  of  Christianity.     It  is  re- 
5* 


54 


markable,  we  think,  that  so  many  "  collects"  could 
have  been  made  by  Christian  men,  without  a  recol- 
lection that  the  "  Saints"  whose  virtues  are  thus  com- 
mended, were  distinguished  more  than  for  any  thing 
else  in  spreading  the  gospel  among  the  heathen,  and 
that  the  thing  in  which  the  church  ought  specifically 
to  imitate  them  is  their  fidelity  in  obeying  the  Re- 
deemer's last  command.  A  missionary  society,  or 
a  missionary  effort,  whether  in  connection  with  other 
Christians  or  by  themselves,  is  a  thing  we  believe 
unknown  to  the  constitution  of  the  Episcopal  church. 
That  constitution  contemplates  a  regularly  organized 
congregation,  and  all  the  efforts  which  are  made  by 
that  church  in  behalf  of  missions  are  efforts  not  con- 
templated by  her  liturgy. 

2.  Revivals  of  religion  are  not  contemplated  by 
the  Prayer-book.  We  believe  that  this  would  be  ad- 
verted to  by  the  high-church  party  as  an  evidence  of 
the  excellence  of  the  book  itself,  if  not  as  a  proof  of 
its  semi-inspiration.  But  the  evangelical  party  have 
different  views  of  the  desirableness  of  such  works  of 
grace.  We  believe  that  they  as  sincerely  rejoice  as 
others  do  when  the  Spirit  of  God  descends  with  power 
on  a  people,  and  when  many  are  brought  simultane- 
ously to  embrace  the  Saviour.  In  the  proper  mea- 
sures for  promoting  such  a  work,  they  sympathize 
with  their  brethren  of  other  churches.  They  would 
dwell  on  the  same  topics  in  preaching ;  urge  with  the 
same  ardour  the  doctrines  of  depravity,  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  and  of  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  give  substantially  the  same 
counsel  to  an  inquiring  sinner.  They  admit  the 
efficacy  of  protracted  services,  or  as  they  choose  to 
call  them,  "  associations j"  and  in  addition  to  such 


55 


services  of  a  "  voluntary"  character,  they  propose  to 
avail  themselves  of  what  would  otherwise  be  the 
cold  and  benumbing  influence  of  the  long  season  of 
fasting  in  "  Lent."  But  what  is  the  relation  of  the 
Prayer-book  to  such  efforts?  What  aid  could  be 
derived  from  that  book  in  a  work  of  grace  ?  What 
would  be  the  effect  of  the  sole  use  of  that  book  in  en- 
deavouring to  promote  a  revival  of  religion,  or  in 
conducting  it?  There  is  nothing  in  that  book  that 
is  adapted  to  promote  what  is  commonly  termed  a 
revival  of  religion  ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  book 
that  is  fitted  to  the  thrilling  scenes  of  such  a  work. 
There  are  no  prayers  that  careless  sinners  may  be 
awakened;  none  that  inquirers  may  be  guided  to 
Christ ;  none  that  would  express  the  desires  of  a 
church  in  behalf  of  those  who  are  asking  what  they 
must  do  to  be  saved.  If  these  things  are  made  the 
object  of  petition  in  an  Episcopal  church,  it  must  be 
by  the  appointment  of  "  prayer  meetings" — assem- 
blages that  are  not  contemplated,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  by  the  Episcopal  constitution.  We  have  heard 
it  said  that  a  Presbyterian  minister  once  went  into  an 
inquiry  meeting,  and  commenced  the  services  of  the 
evening  by  this  question :  "  Can  you  tell  me,  how 
doth  Christ  execute  the  office  of  a  priest?"  The 
Episcopal  Prayer-book  is  not  as  well  adapted  to  the 
state  of  things  in  a  revival  of  relionon,  as  the  use  of 
the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catchism  would  be  if  pro- 
pounded through  and  through  to  those  composing 
such  a  meeting.  There  is  not  a  feature  of  the  book 
that  is  adapted  to  such  a  work  of  grace.  Whether 
this  is  not  an  advantage  in  favour  of  the  book,  we 
are  aware  is  a  point  on  which  many  Episcopalians 
would  differ  materially  from  us.     We  say  only  that 


56 

if  there  are  to  be  revivals  of  religion  in  the  church, 
they  must  be  conducted  in  some  other  way  than  by 
the  use  of  the  Prayer-book. 

3.  The  efforts  for  the  promotion  of  religion  among 
the  young  as  a  distinct  class,  is  a  thing  unknown  to 
the  constitution  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  all  at- 
tempts to  promote  Sabbath  Schools,  whether  in  the 
bosom  of  the  church  as  a  sectarian  matter,  or  on  a 
more  general  scale  in  union  with  other  denomina- 
tions, is  a  departure  from  the  teachings  and  the  de- 
signs of  the  liturgy.  The  Sabbath  School  is  an  in- 
stitution which  has  grown  up  some  two  hundred 
years  since  the  Prayer-book  was  arranged  for  the 
use  of  the  Anglican  church,  and  it  has  never  been 
modified  in  the  least  degree  to  adapt  it  to  the  grand 
enterprise  of  teaching  the  Bible  to  the  young,  though 
more  than  fifty  years  have  elapsed  since  God  began 
to  set  the  undoubted  seal  of  his  blessing  to  the  efforts 
of  Robert  Raikes.  The  Prayer-book,  as  we  now 
have  it,  is  the  "  petrified  wisdom  of  the  age  of 
Elizabeth,"  and  it  does  not  adapt  itself  even  to  the 
undoubted  Christian  institutions  of  an  advanced  period 
of  the  world.  The  only  arrangements  in  the  Prayer- 
book  which  contemplate  the  instruction  of  the  young 
at  all,  are  found  in  the  catechism.  The  amount  of 
instruction  contemplated  there  is,  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
the  creed,  and  the  ten  commandments,  and  a  careful 
initiation  into  the  mystery  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
and  the  expression  of  a  settled  belief  on  the  part  of 
the  child,  that  by  baptism  he  was  made  /*  a  member 
of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  This  great  defect  of  the  Epis- 
copal church ;  this  fact  that  there  is  an  utter  forget- 
fulness  in  her  forms  of  the  young,  and  an  utter  want 


57 


of  adaptedness  in  her  institutions  to  them,  is  thus 
candidly  admitted  by  Archbishop  Whately.  He  ob- 
serves, "  the  liturgy  is  evidently  neither  adapted 
nor  designed  for  children,  even  those  of  such  an  age 
as  to  be  fully  capable  of  joining  in  congregational 
worship,  were  there  a  service  suitably  composed  on 
purpose  for  them.  To  frame  and  introduce  such  a 
service  would  not,  I  think,  be  regarded  as  a  trifling 
improvement,  if  we  could  but  thoroughly  get  rid  of 
the  principle  of  the  Romish  lip-service." — Essays  on 
Romanism,  ch.  i.  5.  This  is  a  candid  confession; 
but  we  do  not  believe  that  it  is  possible  for  the  Epis- 
copal church,  so  long  as  her  forms  are  used,  to  "  get 
rid  of  the  Romish  principle  of  lip-service." 

4.  Prayer  meetings  are  not  contemplated  by  the 
Episcopal  service.  There  is  no  arrangement  in  the 
Prayer-book  for  such  meetings,  nor  so  far  as  we  have 
been  able  to  examine,  is  it  once  intimated  that  they 
would  be  desirable  or  proper.  If  they  are  ever  held, 
they  are  a  departure  from  the  system,  or  an  attempt 
to  engraft  on  the  system  that  which  is  no  part  of 
Episcopacy.  Nothing  would  be  more  unfitted  for 
what  is  ordinarily  designed  by  a  prayer  meeting,  than 
the  use  of  the  forms  of  the  Episcopal  church.  We 
believe  that  those  ministers  of  that  persuasion  who 
patronize  such  meetings,  never  think  of  using  the 
liturgy  on  such  occasions,  unless  it  may  be  to  save 
appearances,  and  we  are  certain  that  the  high  church 
party  are  consistent  and  Episcopally  right  in  their 
opposition  to  such  assemblages. 

5.  All  union  on  religious  subjects  with  other  de- 
nominations, we  regard  as  in  like  manner  at  variance 
with  the  spirit  of  Episcopacy.  There  is  in  the  Prayer- 
book  no  recognition  of  any  other  churches  as  such, 


58 


of  any  other  ministers  than  those  who  are  Episcopally 
ordained,  or  of  any  organization  for  the  promotion 
of  religious  objects  except  "  the  church,"  with  her 
"  bishops,  priests  and  deacons."  In  the  Prayer- 
book,  we  find  no  admission  even  that  others  are  or 
can  be  Christians.  We  think  there  is  but  one  allu- 
sion in  the  forms  of  prayer  to  any  Christians  other 
than  those  of  the  Episcopal  sect,  and  that  occurs  in 
these  words :  "  We  pray  for  thy  holy  church  uni- 
versal, that  it  may  be  guided  and  governed  by  thy 
good  Spirit;  that  all  who  profess  and  call  them- 
selves Christians  may  be  led  in  the  way  of  truth,  and 
hold  the  faith  in  unity  of  spirit,  in  the  bond  of  peace, 
and  in  righteousness  of  life."  There  is  no  prayer 
offered -for  ministers  of  other  denominations — no  al- 
lusion whatever  to  them.  The  prayers  for  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel  are  always  in  the  forms  following : 
"  Send  down  upon  our  bishops  and  other  clergy,  and 
upon  the  congregations  committed  to  their  charge, 
the  healthful  spirit  of  thy  grace."  "  Make,  we  be- 
seech thee,  all  bishops  and  pastors  diligently  to 
preach  thy  holy  word,  and  the  people  obediently  to 
follow  the  same."  The  recognition  of  another  church 
than  the  Episcopal,  or  of  other  ministers  of  the  gospel 
than  the  Episcopal,  is  a  thing  unknown  to  the  Prayer- 
book.  It  contemplates  no  union  with  others,  alludes 
to  no  common  action  with  them,  and  evidently  sup- 
poses that  the  great  interests  of  religion  in  the  world 
will  not  be  carried  forward  by  voluntary  associa- 
tions, or  by  union  with  others,  but  by  the  organiza- 
tion under  the  "  three  orders."  We  have  felt  grate- 
ful for  the  aid  which  some  eloquent  and  zealous 
Episcopalians  have  rendered  in  the  distribution  of  the 
Bible,  and  of  Tracts,  and  in  the  support  of  the  Sun- 


59 


day-school  cause  in  connection  with  others  ;  but  we 
have  never  had  but  one  feeling  in  regard  to  the  con- 
sistency of  this  with  Episcopacy.  We  have  regarded 
it  as  a  departure  from  the  constitution  of  their  church, 
and  whatever  independent  zeal  a  few  may  show  for 
a  time  in  these  catholic  movements,  we  anticipate 
that  the  period  is  not  far  distant  when  the  voice  of  an 
Episcopalian  will  no  longer  be  heard  at  the  anniver- 
saries of  our  national  institutions,  and  that  the  only 
aid  which  Episcopacy  will  render  to  the  cause  of 
diffusing  Christianity,  will  be  under  her  own  dis- 
tinctive organization.  There  is  now  far  less  dis- 
position to  unite  with  others,  than  there  was  a  dozen 
years  ago ; — successive  years  will  show  it  to  be  less 
and  less. 

Our  next  thought  in  regard  to  the  efforts  of  low- 
churchmen,  is,  that  as  far  as  we  understand  the  sub- 
ject, those  efforts  are  all  at  variance  with  the  doctrinal 
views  of  the  church.  We  allude  now  to  the  opposi- 
tion to  Puseyism,  or  the  Oxford  theology.  We  speak 
here  on  the  presumption  that  those  who  are  low- 
churchmen  will  be  in  the  main  opposed  to  that 
system  of  belief.  On  that  controversy  we  have 
looked  from  the  commencement  with  great  in- 
terest, not'  with  reference  to  the  question  -whether 
Puseyism  is  in  accordance  with  the  Bible — for  in 
regard  to  that  we  see  not  how  a  question  can  be 
raised — but  with  reference  to  the  question  whether 
it  is  not  the  true  spirit  of  Episcopacy,  and  is  not  in 
accordance  with  the  views  prevailing  at  the  time 
when  the  Prayer-book  was  arranged,  and  those  ex- 
pressed by  the  standard  writers  of  the  Episcopal 
church.  We  do  not  propose  now  to  go  into  an  ex- 
amination of  these  questions,  but  it  may  be  of  some 


60 

interest  to  those  who  are  in  the  Episcopal  church  to 
know  how  these  things  appear  to  those  who  are  with- 
out. We  regard,  then,  the  Puseyites  as  entirely  in 
the  right  in  this  controversy,  so  far  as  Episcopacy  is 
concerned ;  wholly  wrong  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the 
Bible.  We  think  that  those  who  are  opposed  to  the 
Oxford  theology  are  engaged  in  the  most  hopeless 
of  all  controversies  ever  waged,  so  long  as  they  make 
their  appeal  to  their  own  Prayer-book,  or  the  early 
standard  writers  of  the  Episcopal  denomination. 
We  have  no  doubt  that  if  the  views  of  Dr.  Pusey 
and  Mr.  Newman  were  to  prevail  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  the  church  would  be  substantially  in  the 
same  position  in  which  it  was  in  the  days  of  Eliza- 
beth. It  was  but  half  reformed.  It  retained  then  a 
large  part  of  the  offensive  features  of  Romanism,  and 
those  views  were  embodied  in  the  Prayer-book.  The 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  of  the  opus  opera- 
turn  of  the  sacraments,  of  the  real  presence,  and  of  the 
intermediate  state ;  the  veneration  of  saints,  the  ap- 
pointment of  festival  days  in  commemoration  of  their 
virtues,  the  pomp  and  pageantry  of  worship,  the  sign 
of  the  cross,  bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  the  holi- 
ness of  the  church  and  the  altar,  and  the  sacredness 
of  the  consecrated  burying-place,  all,  with  numerous 
similar  things,  are  part  and  parcel  of  Romanism,  and 
not  of  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament.  To  bring 
back  the  Episcopal  church  to  the  views  entertained 
on  these  subjects  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  which  we 
understand  to  be  the  declared  aim  of  Dr.  Pusey. 
would  be  to  establish  the  sentiments  advanced  in  the 
Tractarian  theology.  The  views  of  Dr.  Pusey  in 
his  celebrated  sermon  on  the  eucharist,  which  was 
the  occasion  of  his  suspension,  we  think  are  abun- 


61 

dantly  sustained  by  the  quotations  which  he  has 
made  from  the  standard  writers  of  the  Episcopal 
church  ;  and  unless  our  evangelical  brethren  in  that 
church  will  change  their  mode  of  argument,  and  ap- 
peal solely  to  the  Bible,  we  are  morally  certain  that 
they  are  destined  to  inevitable  defeat.  The  Prayer- 
book  and  the  Fathers  of  the  Episcopal  church,  will 
sustain  their  adversaries.  An  honest  appeal  to  the 
Bible,  however,  in  the  case,  would  be  fatal  to  Epis- 
copacy, and  if  persevered  in  must  rend  the  Episcopal 
church  in  twain. 

There  is  but  one  other  thought  which  we  propose 
to  submit  m  reference  to  the  present  position  of  the 
evangelical  party  in  the  Episcopal  church.  It  re- 
lates to  their  own  consistency  in  their  efforts  to 
mingle  with  Christians  and  Christian  ministers  of 
other  denominations.  We  have  already  intimated 
that  the  principles  on  which  this  is  done  are  well 
defined  and  understood.  They  never  associate  with 
the  ministers  of  other  denominations  as  Christian 
ministers.  They  never  invite  them  to  preach  for 
them,  but  uniformly  say  when  the  question  comes 
before  them,  that  they  can  not  reciprocate  an  act  of 
ministerial  courtesy  of  this  kind.  They  never  re- 
cognize the  right  of  non-Episcopal  ministers  to  ad- 
minister the  sacraments  of  the  church.  They  never 
recognize  their  ordination  as  an  ordination  to  the 
Christian  ministry,  and  never  suppose  that  a  minister 
from  another  denomination,  except  the  Papal,  can 
be  suffered  to  officiate  in  an  Episcopal  church  with- 
out renouncing  his  former  ordination,  and  perchance 
his  baptism  too,  and  submit  to  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  of  the  prelate.  These  and  kindred  acts  on 
their  part,  force  us  almost  inevitably  to  the  conclu- 
6 


62 


sion  that,  in  common  with  their  high-church  brethren, 
they  regard  the  Episcopal  as  the  only  Christian 
church,  and  consider  all  others,  ministers  and  peo- 
ple, as  left  to  the  "  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God." 

Yet  there  is  much  that  we  can  not  reconcile  with 
this.  There  is  a  zeal  for  the  truth  which  looks  as 
if  they  regarded  the  vital  doctrines  of  Christianity  as 
of  more  importance  than  its  forms.  There  is  an 
honest  effort  to  promote  the  great  objects  contem- 
plated by  the  gospel,  which  seems  to  rise  above  all 
the  narrow  confinement  of  sectarian  efforts.  There 
is,  in  some  things,  such  a  hearty  mingling  with  other 
Christians,  and  such  a  zeal  in  promoting  the  common 
objects  of  our  religion,  as  to  lead  us  for  a  time  to  forget 
the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  and  to  rejoice  in  them  as 
co-workers  with  all  others  in  the  glorious  efforts  to 
spread  the  gospel.  There  is  such  impatience  of 
restraint,  and  such  a  declared  purpose  not  to  be  fet- 
tered by  forms  and  not  to  be  limited  to  the  narrow 
views  of  a  "  sect,"  that  we  begin  to  ask  with  concern, 
whether,  in  our  apprehensions  of  their  attachment  to 
Episcopacy,  we  have  not  done  them  essential  injus- 
tice. There  are  occasionally  such  solemn  declara- 
tions made  in  such  public  places,  that  they  "  will  not 
be  confined  within  the  narrow  walls  of  a  sect,  nor  be 
prevented  from  looking  out  on  the  broad  Christian 
world,  and  sympathizing  with  other  Christians,"  that 
we  are  constrained  to  ask,  whether  we  have  rightly 
understood  the  true  interpretation  of  the  other  posi- 
tions which  they  have  taken,  or  whether — a  con- 
clusion which  we  will  avoid  if  possible — all  this  is 
said  for  the  purpose  of  effect,  and  is  designed  ulti- 
mately more  and  more  to  give  Episcopacy  favour  in 
the  sight  of  the  community. 


63 

Now  so  antagonist  and  irreconcilable  are  these 
positions  of  the  evangelical  party  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  that  we  should  be  glad  to  propound  to  some 
of  the  leaders  of  that  party  a  few  questions,  and  we 
take  the  liberty  of  submitting  them  here,  with  the 
hope,  that  through  their  papers  they  will  furnish  to 
the  community  an  answer. 

The  first  would  be  this.  Do  the  evangelical  party 
regard  the  ministers  of  other  denominations  as  in  any 
sense  authorized  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  their 
churches  as  true  churches?  If  they  do — (which  we 
do  not  believe  to  be  the  case)- — then  we  ask  of  them, 
why  they  are  never  in  any  proper  way  so  recog- 
nized? Why  do  they  not  come  out  and  openly  say 
so?  Why  do  they  never  admit  them  to  their  pul- 
pits ?  Why  do  they  never  protest  against  their  being 
re-ordained  when  one  of  their  number  leaves  the 
church  of  his  fathers,  and  enters  the  service  of  the 
Episcopal  denomination?  Why  do  they  submit  to 
the  gross  public  indignity  offered  to  the  Protestant 
churches  by  the  uniform  acts  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  admitting  a  Catholic  priest  at  once  to  offi- 
ciate at  her  altars  without  re-ordination  ;  demanding 
that  every  other  minister  shall  be  ordained  ? 

If  in  reply  to  these  questions  they  should  say,  that 
they  regard  the  ministers  of  other  denominations  as 
having  a  right  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacra- 
ments, and  consider  the  ordinances  administered  by 
them  as  valid,  but  that  the  "  canons"  of  their  church 
will  not  allow  them  to  express  this  belief  by  any  pub- 
lic act,  or  to  reciprocate  any  act  of  ministerial  fel- 
lowship, then  we  would  ask  of  them  as  independent 
Christian  men,  how  they  can  suffer  their  consciences 
and  their  hearts  to  be  fettered  and  trammeled  by 


64 


such  canons?  How  can  they  consent  to  remain  in 
a  position  where  they  can  not  express  in  any  proper 
way  the  honest  convictions  of  their  minds,  and  act  as 
freemen?  How  can  they  peacefully  minister  in  a 
communion  where  the  very  nature  of  the  institutions 
is  a  well  understood  exclusion  of  all  other  churches 
as  having  no  valid  ministry  and  no  valid  sacraments  ? 
How  can  they,  by  their  conduct,  hold  up  all  other 
churches  as  left  to  the  "  uncovenanted  mercies  of 
God?"  The  Episcopal  sect,  as  such,  is  a  small  part 
of  the  Christian  world.  In  this  land  it  is,  and  it  will 
continue  to  be,  among  the  "  smallest  of  the  tribes  of 
Israel."  Its  communicants  are  few  in  comparison 
with  those  of  other  denominations.  Its  ministers  are 
also  comparatively  few,  and  in  point  of  talent,  learn- 
ing, piety,  and  moral  worth,  are  not  eminent  above 
all  others.  If  it  be  so,  that  other  churches  are  true 
churches,  and  other  ministers  are  true  ministers, 
then  they  have  the  common  right  of  all  Christians, 
to  be  recognized  as  such  by  all  their  Christian  bre- 
thren. That  is  no  desirable  position  for  a  man  to 
place  himself  in,  who  believes  that  these  are  true 
churches,  but  who  is  habitually  constrained  to  speak 
and  act  as  if  they  were  not,  and  so  to  act  as  to  leave 
the  impression  that  he  regards  them  as  on  the  same 
platform  in  regard  to  salvation,  as  the  Jew,  the  Turk, 
and  the  infidel.  And  yet  this  is  the  fair  interpreta- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  the  Episcopalian.  Almost  the 
smallest  denomination  in  our  country  habitually  acts, 
as  if  the  great  body  of  Methodists,  Baptists,  Presby- 
terians, and  Congregationalists,  had  no  claim  to  the 
character  of  a  church,  and  were  to  be  treated  as 
those  on  whom  the  light  of  Christianity  has  never 
risen.    The  most  eminent  ministers  of  the  land,  living 


65 

and  dead,  are  to  be  regarded  as  preaching  without 
authority,  and  as  intruders  in  the  sacred  office.  Of 
the  departed,  Eliot,  and  Edwards,  and  Bellamy,  and 
Dwight,  are  never  to  be  spoken  of  as  true  ministers 
of  the  gospel;  of  the  living,  that  honoured  appellation 
should  not  be  given  to  Beecher,  Alexander,  Woods, 
Stuart,  or  Nott.  Hall,  in  our  father-land,  was  no 
true  minister;  Wesley  was  one  only  because  he  had 
been  touched  by  Episcopal  hands ;  Summerfield  had 
neither  there  nor  here  a  right  to  preach,  and  nine- 
tenths  of  the  effective  ministry  of  our  country  are 
to  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  intruders  and 
imposters.  Now  do  the  evangelical  party  in  the 
Episcopal  church  believe  this?  If  they  do  not,  we 
call  upon  them  by  every  sentiment  of  honour  and 
religion,  to  say  so.  If  they  can  not  do  this  and  re- 
main in  the  bosom  of  Episcopacy,  then  we  call  upon 
them  to  act  the  man  and  the  Christian,  and  to  seek 
a  connexion  where  they  can  say  this,  and  can  act 
out  the  honest  conviction  of  their  souls.  We  do  not 
understand  the  constitution  of  that  man  who  can 
quietly  remain  in  a  connexion  where,  by  a  fair  inter- 
pretation, his  conduct  will  do  an  enormous  wrong 
habitually  to  the  great  mass  of  his  Christian  bre- 
thren, and  where  this  interpretation  of  his  conduct 
will  express  a  constant  falsehood  in  regard  to  his  own 
opinions. 

But  if  the  evangelical  Episcopalian  should  say, 
that  he  does  not  regard  the  ministers  of  other  deno- 
minations as  having  a  right  to  preach  and  to  admi- 
nister the  sacraments,  then  we  have  another  question 
to  propose.  Why  is  not  this  honestly  avowed  ? 
Why  is  there  not  on  his  part  always  a  course  of 
conduct  entirely  consistent  with  this?  Why  is  there 
6* 


66 

ever  any  such  mingling  with  other  denominations,  as 
to  leave  any  doubt  in  regard  to  this  matter?  His 
high-church  brethren  never  act  in  such  a  way  as  to 
leave  room  for  an  ambiguous  interpretation  of  their 
views,  and  we  honour  them  for  their  consistency. 
We  know  where  to  find  them.  It  is  always  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  and  they  never  so  far  forget  them- 
selves as  to  convey  the  impression  that  they  have 
ever  heard  that  there  is  any  other  church.  If  the 
low-churchman  holds  the  same  views  in  regard  to 
the  church  and  the  ministry,  then  what  means  all 
the  declamation  which  we  hear  about  his  own  catho- 
lic and  liberal  views,  and  his  determination  not  to  be 
fettered  and  manacled? 

We  take  our  stand  here.  If  the  evangelical  Epis- 
copalian regards  other  churches  as  true  churches, 
and  other  ministers  as  true  ministers,  we  have  a  right 
to  know  it.  If  he  does  not,  then  the  community  has 
a  right  to  know  what  Episcopacy  is.  If  it  is  essen- 
tially narrow,  and  exclusive;  if  it  recognizes  no  other 
communion  as  a  true  church,  and  regards  all  others 
as  left  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God,  then  it 
is  a  right  which  the  community  has,  to  understand 
this.  Episcopalians  are  every  where  endeavouring 
to  win  the  young  from  the  churches  of  their  fathers. 
Let  us  understand  fully  what  the  system  is,  and  let 
not  the  youth  of  the  land,  won  by  great  professions 
of  catholicity  and  zeal  for  the  common  cause,  be 
drawn  blindfold  into  a  communion  that  is  essentially 
exclusive  of  all  others,  and  where  the  first  act  of  faith 
must  be  the  expression  of  a  belief,  that  a  father  and 
mother  worship  in  a  conventicle,  and  are  baptized 
and  buried  under  the  ministry  of  laymen. 

We  have  spoken  freely,  but  not  in  anger.     It  is 


67 

not  because  we  believe  that  those  brethren  who  are 
endeavouring  to  infuse  the  evangelical  principle  into 
the  Episcopal  church,  are  not  good  men,  that  we 
have  made  these  remarks.  We  consider  it  an  honour 
that  we  are  permitted  to  number  some  among  them  as 
our  personal  friends,  and  there  are  many  among 
them  at  whose  feet  we  would  regard  it  as  a  privilege 
to  sit  down.  Among  the  living  of  this  class,  we 
doubt  not  there  are  some  as  holy  men  as  the  church 
embosoms,  and  among  the  dead,  there  are  those 
whose  memory  will  be  cherished  as  long  as  piety,  elo- 
quence, and  moral  worth,  are  honoured  on  the  earth. 
The  name  of  Bedell  will  not  be,  and  should  not  be, 
forgotten.  This  land  has  known  few  men  who  have 
done  more  honour  to  the  ministry  than  he  did.  His 
silvery  tones,  his  placid  manner,  his  clear  enuncia- 
tion, his  unshrinking  fidelity,  his  indefatigable  toils, 
his  meek,  pure,  unobtrusive  Christian  spirit,  his  large- 
hearted  liberality  toward  all  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  can  not  be  forgotten  by  the  multitudes  who 
hung  on  his  lips  as  a  preacher,  and  who  loved  him 
as  a  man. 

But  we  regard  these  brethren  as  labouring  in  an 
impracticable  work,  and  in  a  work  which  it  would 
not  be  desirable  to  accomplish  if  it  could  be  done — 
an  attempt  to  blend  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  with  the 
religion  of  forms.  The  experiment  has  now  been 
fairly  made.  It  can  not  be  hoped  that  it  will  be  made 
under  better  auspices,  and  we  regard  it  as  destined  to 
inevitable  failure.  As  we  love  pure  evangelical  re- 
ligion, therefore,  we  think  it  right  to  state  what  we 
think  must  be  the  result  of  the  experiment,  and  to  set 
before  the  churches  the  principles  which  are  involved 
in  the  controversy. 


68 

We  think,  also,  that  there  has  been  an  error  in 
other  denominations  of  Christians  in  this   matter. 
There  has  been  a  feeling,  the  correctness  of  which 
no  one  seemed  to  regard  it  as  proper  to  doubt,  that 
the  Episcopal  sect  was  to  be  numbered  in  the  family 
of  evangelical  churches,   and   that  other  churches 
should  lend  their  influence  to  infuse  the  evangelical 
spirit  more  and  more  into  that  communion.     Under 
the  influence  of  that  desire,  pious  and  devoted  young 
men  have  been  advised  to  throw  themselves  into  that 
communion,  with  the  hope,  that  they  might  do  more 
to  promote  the  great  cause,  by  attempting  to  diffuse 
the  spirit  of  Christ  through  the  religion  of  forms, 
than  by  ministering  in  connexion  with  the  church  of 
their   fathers.     This,    we    now   think,  was   unwise 
counsel.     It  was  both  unkind  to  Episcopacy,  and  it 
was  morally  certain  that  it  would  be  a  failure.     It 
was  as  unkind  as  if  the  Methodist  church,  pressed 
with  great  concern  for  the  Presbyterian  denomina- 
tion, should  scatter  its  ardent  sons  through  all  the 
presbyteries  of  the  land,  avowedly  for  the  purpose  of 
changing  its  policy,  and  diffusing  the  tactics  of  Wes- 
ley through  the  Presbyterian  ranks ;  and  it  was  an 
experiment  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  must 
fail.     There  is  a  way  of  effectually  neutralizing  all 
such  influence  that  comes  in  from  other  denomina- 
tions.    Episcopacy  has  the  means  of  infusing  its  own 
principles,  with  singular  vigour,  into  the  heart  of  a 
neophyte  from  another  church.     Let  the  mitre  once 
touch  the  head  of  a  low-churchman,  and  a  new  light 
shines  on  his  mind  in  regard  to  the  apostolic  succes- 
sion, and  on  all  the  pomp  and  paraphernalia  of  pre- 
lacy; and  as  a  New  England  man  becomes  the  most 
cruel  of  all  slave-drivers,  if  he  can  be  made  so  far  to 


forget  himself  as  to  become  a  slave-driver  at  all, 
so  a  man  from  an  evangelical  denomination  becomes 
the  most  furious  for  prelacy,  if  he  can  be  made  so 
far  to  forget  himself  as  to  become  a  prelate  at  all. 
We  think  it  time  for  the  evangelical  young  men  of 
our  country  to  understand,  that  if  they  wish  to  ad- 
vance the  cause  of  the  gospel,  it  is  not  to  be  in  con- 
nexion with  the  religion  of  forms.  The  gospel  of 
Christ  has  elements  of  moral  power  in  itself  which 
are  only  hindered  by  gorgeous  external  rites — as  the 
keenness  of  a  Damascus  blade  is  rendered  useless  if 
buried  within  a  gorgeous  scabbard. 

We  regard  the  prevailing  spirit  of  Episcopocy,  in 
all  aspects,  high  and  low,  as  at  variance  with  the 
spirit  of  this  age  and  of  this  land.  This  is  an  age  of 
freedom,  and  men  will  be  free.  The  religion  of 
forms  is  the  stereotyped  wisdom  or  folly  of  the  past, 
and  does  not  adapt  itself  to  the  free  movements,  the 
enlarged  views,  the  varying  plans  of  this  age.  The 
spirit  of  this  age  demands  that  there  shall  be  freedom 
in  religion;  that  it  shall  not  be  fettered  or  suppressed  ; 
that  it  shall  go  forth  to  the  conquest  of  the  world. 
It  is  opposed  to  all  bigotry  and  uncharitableness;  to 
all  attempts  to  "  unchurch"  others ;  to  teaching  that 
they  worship  in  conventicles,  that  they  are  dissenters, 
or  that  they  are  left  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of 
God.  All  such  language  did  better  in  the  days  of 
Laud  and  Bonner,  than  now.  It  might  be  appro- 
priate in  lands  where  religion  is  united  in  the  state 

— "like  beauty  to  old  age 
For  interest's  sake,  the  living-  to  the  dead," 

but  it  does  not  suit  our  times,  or  country.     It  makes 
a  jar  on  American  feelings.     It  will  not  be  tolerated 


70 

by  this  community.  The  spirit  of  this  land  is,  that 
the  church  of  Christ  is  not  under  the  Episcopal  form, 
the  Baptist,  the  Methodist,  the  Presbyterian,  or  the 
Congregational  form  exclusively;  all  are,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  to  be  recognized  as  parts  of  the 
one  holy  catholic  church,  with  no  distinction  of  pre- 
rogative, with  no  right  to  the  assumption  of  exclusive 
names,  with  no  self-complacent  expression  of  feeling 
that  their  form  brings  them  nearer  to  heaven  than 
others.  There  is  a  spirit  in  this  land  which  requires 
that  the  gospel  shall  depend  for  its  success  not  on 
solemn  processions  and  imposing  rites,  not  on  the 
idea  of  superior  sanctity  in  the  priesthood  in  virtue 
of  their  office,  not  on  genuflections  and  ablutions,  not 
on  any  virtue  conveyed  by  the  imposition  of  holy 
hands,  and  not  on  union  with  any  particular  church, 
but  on  solemn  appeals  to  the  reason,  the  conscience, 
the  immortal  hopes  and  fears  of  men,  attended  by 
the  holy  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  which 
demands  tKat  the  devotion  which  from  age  to  age  is 
to  be  breathed  forth  on  our  hills  and  along  our  val- 
leys, should  be  that  pure  worship  which  proceeds 
from  the  heart,  worshiping  God  in  spirit  and  in 
truth. 


THE  END. 


